Trending Games | World of Warcraft | Dragon Age: Inquisition | EverQuest | Skyforge

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,905,044 Users Online:0
Games:757  Posts:6,292,240
Rift (Rift)
Trion Worlds | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 03/01/11)  | Pub:Trion Worlds
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:Free | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:Free
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

13 Pages First « 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 » Last Search
244 posts found
  User Deleted
3/27/13 1:59:19 PM#121
Every last one of the sandbox/player created content should go play EVE, and I mean play it, for a few years, then come back and comment that sandboxes are antiquated or any other such paltry diatribe.
  GrumpyMel2

Advanced Member

Joined: 3/24/09
Posts: 1828

3/27/13 2:02:05 PM#122

You guys need to remember something. A game, any game is a high risk investment. There are thousands of things that can go wrong with it and make your investment disappear even before it gets to launch.

AAA Themepark MMO's take a HUGE pile of capital to create and that capital has to be sunk into that project for a long time before it gets to launch. Yes, if it's a big hit, you'll make a ton of money back...but if not you can take a huge loss.

Now any guesses as to how easy it is in todays climate to go out and raise a huge pile of capital for a high risk project in which your money will be tied up for years before you see your return?

It's almost beside the point whether players would enjoy a big budget project like TOR. How likely do you think it is to be able to get the type of capital investment it would take to make that today?

Capital is very tight for projects, especialy capital for high risk projects.....and most of the capital that does exist is for things that can be liquidated very quickly if neccessary.

So even if AAA Themeparks were the best thing since slice bread, it'd be really, really hard to put together the financing neccesary to build one today.

That's another reason you see Developers scrambling for models that they believe require lower capital investments to get to launch and less time before they can start to see some return....things that follow a slow growth model. For MMO's, one of those things looks to be "sandbox" mmo's. Yes there are other types of games that are not MMO's but may have some MMO-like features that fall into that category as well...and yes we'll see plenty of development of those as well....but MMO developers are going to want to try to develop some actual MMO's as well.

 

 

  Aelious

Hard Core Member

Joined: 9/27/11
Posts: 2508

World > Quest Progression

3/27/13 2:03:54 PM#123
I think EvE is a great example of why having sandbox features in quality game is a profitable idea. 500k subs right? What other MMO can say that? Blizzard, yep. Trion? yep.... Hmm, I can't think of any others. Now CCP had to build that amount of subs over time and they did it with a spaceship themed affair which is pretty niche. Along with CCP having a quality product this speaks well of it's sandbox nature, a longer type of progression and one that gets players invested in the game. Long tern game investnent us something a lot of themepark games struggle with.
  User Deleted
3/27/13 2:10:23 PM#124
Originally posted by Dihoru
Every last one of the sandbox/player created content should go play EVE, and I mean play it, for a few years, then come back and comment that sandboxes are antiquated or any other such paltry diatribe.

I played EVE for a few months I hated it.  I played UO for 4 years and SWG for 2.  I can tell you this, most MMO players would be lost in an Sandbox.  So saying how sandboxes are is really short sighted.  Sandbox MMOs normally have between 250K to 500K players not more.  Why?  Because few people that have come into the MMO population since WoW wouldnt know what to do.  They don't understand open spawns, or not questing.  How do I know?  I play with many who have only starting playing MMOs since WoW.  I brought a few to play UO.  When they started playing it they looked for quest, they didnt understand running around killing stuff to skill up and not level up, they didnt understand going into Shame and killing earth elements.  They sat there for over a week just looking like WTF is this?  

It only works if you make a Themepark game with Sandbox elements.  Thats it. 

  User Deleted
3/27/13 2:13:41 PM#125
Originally posted by Aelious
I think EvE is a great example of why having sandbox features in quality game is a profitable idea. 500k subs right? What other MMO can say that? Blizzard, yep. Trion? yep.... Hmm, I can't think of any others. Now CCP had to build that amount of subs over time and they did it with a spaceship themed affair which is pretty niche. Along with CCP having a quality product this speaks well of it's sandbox nature, a longer type of progression and one that gets players invested in the game. Long tern game investnent us something a lot of themepark games struggle with.

Problem is Aelious people dont have the hours of time to invest in a game like UO, SWG, or Eve.  Eve would be a little easier because you can level your skills while logged out, however not like UO or SWG.  I think more of a Hybrid would be better.  Have Levels for the Themepark, then have skills like UO had for crafting or for other things like Teasurehunting. 

  Aelious

Hard Core Member

Joined: 9/27/11
Posts: 2508

World > Quest Progression

3/27/13 2:17:42 PM#126
Not every game needs to get every player possible. Especially sandboxes because they don't tend to have the same turnover and can thrive with less people. It's also possible to have longer term progression that comes in bite sized pieces for those that have limited time. If not then don't play it. I personally don't sit down to play unless I have adequate time because I know how quickly that time goes by :)
  azzamasin

Hard Core Member

Joined: 6/06/12
Posts: 2820

We live in a fantasy world, a world of illusion. The great task in life is to find reality.

3/27/13 2:17:50 PM#127
Originally posted by SysFail

Having watched the PAX discussion by MMORPG, i'm feeling quite happy about the future of MMO's, as it looks as though developers are embracing the idea of the sandbox for its freedom and player created content, rather than the scripted path of the themepark.

Watch it here. http://www.mmorpg.com/showVideo.cfm/videoId/3005

I did not got the same feeling you got.  My vibe was that sandbox elements are the future, not full fledged sandbox games.  Theres stil la reason why Themepark's outnumber sandboxes 100 to 1 in triple-A marketing, sales and subscriptions.  I do feel that certain sandbox elements are poised for a grand unification though.

If your idea of a Sandbox is open FFA Full Loot PvP, full crafted world with minimal support for anything combat then your sandbox ideas are bad! Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

  azzamasin

Hard Core Member

Joined: 6/06/12
Posts: 2820

We live in a fantasy world, a world of illusion. The great task in life is to find reality.

3/27/13 2:19:46 PM#128
Originally posted by Dihoru
Every last one of the sandbox/player created content should go play EVE, and I mean play it, for a few years, then come back and comment that sandboxes are antiquated or any other such paltry diatribe.

Eve has never touched my hardrive and if any indication of videos or forumites are indicitive of the game and its community it never will touch it.

If your idea of a Sandbox is open FFA Full Loot PvP, full crafted world with minimal support for anything combat then your sandbox ideas are bad! Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

  nariusseldon

Hard Core Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 20226

3/27/13 2:20:12 PM#129
Originally posted by Aelious
But you don't just stand there, right? IMO the ability to create things that are content for others is how I recognize "sandbox" gameplay. Sure, there are other factors but I'm not sure where the seperation is.

Forming a group fighting mobs is not "creating" anything.

People should not fudge the concepts.

Let's be clear .. creating quests and other playable content using tools provided by the devs, but not in-game .. that is what being discussed. And if you restrict the definition to that, 99% of UGC is crap.

  fs23otm

Hard Core Member

Joined: 6/11/07
Posts: 269

3/27/13 2:26:57 PM#130
Originally posted by nariusseldon

Forming a group fighting mobs is not "creating" anything.

People should not fudge the concepts.

Let's be clear .. creating quests and other playable content using tools provided by the devs, but not in-game .. that is what being discussed. And if you restrict the definition to that, 99% of UGC is crap.

Exactly why I constantly preach people do not know the true definition of what a sandbox is.

People have their own opinions, but that is not what a sandbox is. 

  Gdemami

Elite Member

Joined: 9/23/08
Posts: 7304

3/27/13 2:44:46 PM#131


Originally posted by GGrimm

Developers have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars trying to make the next great themepark game. To what success? Why would they want to spend good money after bad?


Making profit and running successful business probably equals to wasting money within your arbitrary qualifiers but I am afraid that does not mean much for the rest of the world.

Themeparks and lobby/instanced/action games do make money thus there is little reason to produce something else.

  waynejr2

Elite Member

Joined: 4/12/11
Posts: 3785

RIP City of Heroes!

3/27/13 2:52:48 PM#132
I think there is a case to be made for devs to make a minimal game but include tools for players to create content.  If pitched in the right way, it could make a ton of money.  The initial cost would be low and the content generation would be free as your players are doing the work for you.   It is likely many will hail you as a genius for doing this for the gaming community.
  nariusseldon

Hard Core Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 20226

3/27/13 2:55:57 PM#133
Originally posted by Aelious
Not every game needs to get every player possible. Especially sandboxes because they don't tend to have the same turnover and can thrive with less people. It's also possible to have longer term progression that comes in bite sized pieces for those that have limited time. If not then don't play it. I personally don't sit down to play unless I have adequate time because I know how quickly that time goes by :)

The issue is how many fewer. If only 10 people sub, it does not matter if they are in it for life. There is not a big enough market.

And it depends on the investment. Do you think EQN will have a good return on investment if only 10K players show up, no matter how loyal they are?

Secondly i think loyalty is only going to be futher eroded. Why would one be loyal when there are more and more games to try/play? Most people are naturally variety seeking.

  JasonJ

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/19/13
Posts: 414

3/27/13 3:01:01 PM#134
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Aelious
Not every game needs to get every player possible. Especially sandboxes because they don't tend to have the same turnover and can thrive with less people. It's also possible to have longer term progression that comes in bite sized pieces for those that have limited time. If not then don't play it. I personally don't sit down to play unless I have adequate time because I know how quickly that time goes by :)

The issue is how many fewer. If only 10 people sub, it does not matter if they are in it for life. There is not a big enough market.

And it depends on the investment. Do you think EQN will have a good return on investment if only 10K players show up, no matter how loyal they are?

Secondly i think loyalty is only going to be futher eroded. Why would one be loyal when there are more and more games to try/play? Most people are naturally variety seeking.

 Yet Ultima Online, EverQuest 1, Asherons Call 1, Anarchy Online are still going...

And what is with this if its a sandbox its lucky to get 10k people crap? UO and EQ both got around 400k players at its peak, SWG 350k, AC1 100k...Eve has how many? Thats not even including the Asian sandbox games...

  SysFail

Apprentice Member

Joined: 7/01/05
Posts: 377

 
OP  3/27/13 3:01:12 PM#135

An example of devs giving players the tools for content in my eyes would be like along the lines of...

 

Johnny Jacker wants to be a thief, so he trains the required skills, he then steals from another and runs...

Now the other player was Johnnys content, but now Johnny has become the victims content and the victim has to decide the next course of action, do they pursue, call for help, let it go?

Whatever the action will first depend on what type of skills the victim has, if they're a merchant, they call for help or let it go, if they're a combat char, they're going to give chase most likely.

Now lets say the character was a merchant with no combat skills and they call for help. Naturally combat orientated characters will be the ones to give chase, so now we have another involved. So lets say they do, they capture Johnny, kill Johnny and are then faced with, returning the item or keeping them stolen item.

Lets say they were good hearted, so gave back the item, the merchant being chuffed, gives a reward. But that's not the end, Johnny belonged to a notorious clan who didn't take to kindly to Johnny getting killed, so they hunt down the good guy and kill him... Now this good character belonged to a clan also, they too take offense to a member getting hunted down and so begins a war between the two clans...

 

Now that's just an example of what a sandbox can provide just through one simple skill, stealing. Give the players tools like these and players will make the most  of it.

  nariusseldon

Hard Core Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 20226

3/27/13 3:01:15 PM#136
Originally posted by Gdemami

 


Originally posted by GGrimm

 

Developers have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars trying to make the next great themepark game. To what success? Why would they want to spend good money after bad?


 

Making profit and running successful business probably equals to wasting money within your arbitrary qualifiers but I am afraid that does not mean much for the rest of the world.

Themeparks and lobby/instanced/action games do make money thus there is little reason to produce something else.

To what success?

D3 sold 12M copies. TL2 and PoE are successful enough. That is the extreme of linear progression RPG. You don't even need a virtual world.

LoL surpass WOW in number of players .. made tons of money. That is just lobby arena combat. WoT is high successful and now making TWO more games (probably linked together). Again ... just lobby arena combat.

How about GW2 .. selling 2M copies right out of the gate and still top 10 on xfire.

If i am a dev, is there a reason not to throw good money after good? WoT is clearly doubling down and make more.

Even games with lesser successes (like STO, DDO, LOTRO ...) are putting out new expansion and new content. You think they will do that if they are not making a good profit?

 

  Vesavius

Old School

Joined: 3/08/04
Posts: 7482

Players come for the game, but they stay for the people- Most Devs have forgotten this.

3/27/13 3:23:58 PM#137
Originally posted by fs23otm
Originally posted by Vesavius

I remember a few years ago on this site when almost everyone was loving the themepark style of game, the slide into casual drop in play, and why these things should be 'accessible' with equal rewards for everyone, deriding anything that didn't fit into that mold as being a 'job' and not a game. People that thought this was the way forward got very angry at folks that wanted more.

Funny how fashions shape the way people think and the landscapes of these forums.

I would be willing to be that in five years we will see it all swing around again and there will be thread after thread about how much we need to see the return of drop in themeparks and super accessible play that isn't 'a job'.

Most people on these forums don't know their head from a hole in the wall. They scream "We want sandbox", and yet can't even define on what makes a sandbox.

 

True. I actually don't think most folks yelling for a sandbox could even handle a real one, one stripped of any of the themeparkesque guidance they have come to rely on.

 

  Loktofeit

Novice Member

Joined: 1/13/10
Posts: 12401

Currently playing EVE, SMITE, ArcheAge, and Combat Arms

3/27/13 3:39:21 PM#138
Originally posted by Vesavius

True. I actually don't think most folks yelling for a sandbox could even handle a real one, one stripped of any of the themeparkesque guidance they have come to rely on.

I can't speak for anyone else, but that's true for me to a certain degree. I really like games like UO and EVE, but I tend to get a bit lost in MMOs like There and Second Life. In the latter, I usually just pick out a particular toy of some kind within the game and entertain myself with it for a while, often to the exclusion of everything and everyone else. Although I can spend hours doing stuff in Free Realms. :)

"And wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica. Wikipedia is very reliable. You would be hard pressed to find a more reliable source for these kinds of things." -fivoroth

  ignore_me

Apprentice Member

Joined: 7/04/11
Posts: 2034

3/27/13 3:53:36 PM#139
Originally posted by Quirhid
Originally posted by SysFail
 

A virtual world will do poorly because?

Because it is make-believe, play, a toy - NOT a game. Roleplaying or make-believe has never been all that popular. Don't ask me why, because I don't know. This is a crude generalization ofcourse, but games that don't have a point other than to "be there and live there" are not as popular as games that give you an objective to accomplish.

 

I also think you are grossly undermining the virtues of World of Warcraft in order to draw conclusions which suit you better. And take this from someone who has never been all that interested in WoW. WoW made many things well. It was much, much more than just timing.

It's true that role-playing is not all that popular. It's not all that easy either.

I was just amazed at how many responses this dialogue brought from others. The cybernetics of how the game feels to the player are important. If the experience feels too homogenous then more detail-oriented players will not be engaged enough in the game, not enough data being moved through short term memory. It's sometimes about the perceived possibility of what can be done more than what can actually be done in the game.

Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011

  JasonJ

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/19/13
Posts: 414

3/27/13 3:54:36 PM#140
Originally posted by Vesavius
Originally posted by fs23otm
Originally posted by Vesavius

I remember a few years ago on this site when almost everyone was loving the themepark style of game, the slide into casual drop in play, and why these things should be 'accessible' with equal rewards for everyone, deriding anything that didn't fit into that mold as being a 'job' and not a game. People that thought this was the way forward got very angry at folks that wanted more.

Funny how fashions shape the way people think and the landscapes of these forums.

I would be willing to be that in five years we will see it all swing around again and there will be thread after thread about how much we need to see the return of drop in themeparks and super accessible play that isn't 'a job'.

Most people on these forums don't know their head from a hole in the wall. They scream "We want sandbox", and yet can't even define on what makes a sandbox.

True. I actually don't think most folks yelling for a sandbox could even handle a real one, one stripped of any of the themeparkesque guidance they have come to rely on.

 Plenty of people on this site seems to have played either Ultima Online, Asherons Call 1 or Star Wars Galaxies.

3 sandboxes, 3 very different games.

The actual issue is that there are those that think sandbox = the same thing...which is not true. Sandbox merely means an open design...not the SAME design.

That is how Eve is also a sandbox yet = a space game.

13 Pages First « 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 » Last Search