EVE is very successful. WoW is moreso. Both make tons of money. Once devs figure out that WoW is WoW they will need to move in a different direction. You can still make plenty of money with as few as 50k subscribers. Plenty of MMOs have done it, and many continue to do so.
Unfortuantely, it seems devs are too interested in getting a billion subscribers. Its aint gonna happen, fellas. That spot is filled for quite some time to come.
I remember back in 1998 an MMO is considered a success/thriving when it has 300-500 users concurrently online.
Hehe yeah, and today we have WoW fanbois saying UO was a flop because it didn't have millions of players back then
Originally posted by wolfmann Originally posted by -aLpHa- I dislike Sandbox Games .
Then you have plenty of games to play But for us Sandbox gamers? We barely have any. And since most games are of your liking..as in "non sandbox", we see that the majority of players play non sandbox games...
Actually i think you will find that most EvE fanbois didnt even give 2 seconds thought to this 'Award'. It certainly hasat bee on the EvE website. Ad when someoe posts about this site most just say 'so what'.
Also EvE ahs over 200,000 accounts not 15,000 or 20'000.
If anything its your fault EvE won for not voting or promoting the award thingy with your fellow WoW fanbois.
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god." -- Jean Rostand
Actually i think you will find that most EvE fanbois didnt even give 2 seconds thought to this 'Award'. It certainly hasat bee on the EvE website. Ad when someoe posts about this site most just say 'so what'.
Also EvE ahs over 200,000 accounts not 15,000 or 20'000.
If anything its your fault EvE won for not voting or promoting the award thingy with your fellow WoW fanbois.
Just to clarify..
Eve has a little over 200K active, paid accounts. There's usually 30-40K of them logged on at any given moment in time.
And I didn't even know about these awards until someone posted that it had won them over on the Eve forums
When are we gonna stop getting wow clones and get a new sandbox mmo ? Bioware's interviews makes it clear its another wow clone. So does Star Trek (if it even gets launched). The people have spoken developers, we prefer overwhelmingly sandbox MMO's. Its time to rethink those boring linear quest-driven concepts. Eve wins best MMO once again SWG loses hundreds of thousands of players once it dumps its sandbox game for a linear design. The evidence is clear. Why not give the folks what they want ?
The evidence is clear. They are giving people what they want. They have voted with their wallets. If more people wanted to play prehistoric old sandbox games they would. The market is awash with them, but no one is intrested.
what...exactly, do you "dislike" about sandbox games? the fact that you are free to do what you want? the fact that you arent held down by levels? you can advance in crafting or killing as you please? the bond created with your fellow warrior or craftsmen>? the player driven econony (all the good and bad that comes with it)? the clan wars? The sense of accomplishment not found in linear grind fests? enlighten us.
Wow there are a lot more naysayers than I thought, what are you people smoking? Sorry for the double, but, everyone keeps saying how there are so many sandbox games out. I only know of EvE...I dunno what you call SWG as i havent played it since it went sour. UO maybe? Any game you bring up besides EvE is EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY dated. THe only reason you could bring these up is to further your defense. None of the options are realistic.
You're saying that Sandboxes suck, and everyone wants to play linear WoW's...
Then we say, "look sir, you got all the games, we ain't got any games!"
And then you direct me to go play the grandfather MMO's.. since there really are no NEW sandbox games.
Thats kinda like telling a RTS player that's tired of the lack of RTS games in favor of FPS games, that he can go play Dune or C&C 1.
"Pleenty of RTS games out there..there's Dune , there's C&C 1, there's pleeentty. Go play em while I go play Chrysis or Bioshock or Halflife Orange Box."
And then you proclaim that RTS suck and there are no RTS players left but a few hardcore idiots who can't leave Dune behind...
I will also have to admit as a EVE player that the main reason that EVE won was because EVE players acually care enough about are game to take the time to vote and spread the word.
what...exactly, do you "dislike" about sandbox games? the fact that you are free to do what you want? the fact that you arent held down by levels? you can advance in crafting or killing as you please? the bond created with your fellow warrior or craftsmen>? the player driven econony (all the good and bad that comes with it)? the clan wars? The sense of accomplishment not found in linear grind fests? enlighten us.
So many faulty premises.....where to start?
"the fact that you are free to do what you want?"
In what way are you "free" in a "sandbox" game, but not "free" in a "linear" game? Let's have some examples, shall we? I'll start. In WoW (AKA every sandbox touter's whipping-boy), just by way of example you are "free" to:
1. Raid
2. Do Daily Quests
3. Farm resource nodes
4. Farm MOB drops
5. Speculate on the AH
6. Level a toon through quests
7. Level a toon by grinding
8. Craft
9. Run Battlegrounds
10. Spawn camp for poops and grins
11. get a big group together and raid Orgrimar or Ironforge or Crossroads or Southshore
12. Grind rep
13. Run nubs through low level dungeons for money
14. Do world PVP
15. Run a 5-man instance
16. Fly around on your mount just for the hell of it
you can advance in crafting or killing as you please?
Same question....you can't advance in crafting or killing in WoW?
the bond created with your fellow warrior or craftsmen
Where is it written that linear play precludes one from forming bonds?
the player driven econony (all the good and bad that comes with it)
Since when is "sandbox" synonymous with "player driven economy" and "linear" antithetical to that concept? Last I checked, you couldn't by herbs, minerals, potions, or crafted armor or weapons from NPCs in WoW.
the clan wars?
I'm not even sure I know what this is, but who needs clan wars when you have Horde vs. Alliance?
The sense of accomplishment not found in linear grind fests? enlighten us.
Downing Illidan is not an accomplishment then? If not that, what is?
____________________________________________ im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
what...exactly, do you "dislike" about sandbox games? the fact that you are free to do what you want? the fact that you arent held down by levels? you can advance in crafting or killing as you please? the bond created with your fellow warrior or craftsmen>? the player driven econony (all the good and bad that comes with it)? the clan wars? The sense of accomplishment not found in linear grind fests? enlighten us.
So many faulty premises.....where to start?
"the fact that you are free to do what you want?"
In what way are you "free" in a "sandbox" game, but not "free" in a "linear" game? Let's have some examples, shall we? I'll start. In WoW (AKA every sandbox touter's whipping-boy), just by way of example you are "free" to:
1. Raid
2. Do Daily Quests
3. Farm resource nodes
4. Farm MOB drops
5. Speculate on the AH
6. Level a toon through quests
7. Level a toon by grinding
8. Craft
9. Run Battlegrounds
10. Spawn camp for poops and grins
11. get a big group together and raid Orgrimar or Ironforge or Crossroads or Southshore
12. Grind rep
13. Run nubs through low level dungeons for money
14. Do world PVP
15. Run a 5-man instance
16. Fly around on your mount just for the hell of it
you can advance in crafting or killing as you please?
Same question....you can't advance in crafting or killing in WoW?
the bond created with your fellow warrior or craftsmen
Where is it written that linear play precludes one from forming bonds?
the player driven econony (all the good and bad that comes with it)
Since when is "sandbox" synonymous with "player driven economy" and "linear" antithetical to that concept? Last I checked, you couldn't by herbs, minerals, potions, or crafted armor or weapons from NPCs in WoW.
the clan wars?
I'm not even sure I know what this is, but who needs clan wars when you have Horde vs. Alliance?
The sense of accomplishment not found in linear grind fests? enlighten us.
Downing Illidan is not an accomplishment then? If not that, what is?
I played WoW for a long time (the better part of two years), I'm coming up on six months in Eve. They're so different it's hard to describe for someone who hasn't played both extensively.
Everything you say is true. All MMOs are very sandbox-y compared to more traditional single-player games or even mutliplayer games of other genres. When people talk about sandbox games in MMOs, they're usually refering to a gameplay style that is very unrestricted. The fact that you can list all the things to do is the very thing that people point to as being restrictive.
The best quick comparison I can make is to say that playing WoW is like going to Disneyland. It's fun, there's lots to do, plenty of attractions, and you some neat toys to take home. Playing Eve is like wandering around in a big city. There's always new places to go, people to meet, and things to do, but in the bustle of it all nobody is going to point you at them. And it's way too big to ever really see it all or do it all.
I'm not saying WoW is a bad game, it's a very good game. But a lot of people like the concept of a game where the world is open, players aren't segregated, there's no levels, people can switch gears on the fly without rerolling, there's no gear grind, people can take over and hold territory, advancement is 100% self-directed, etc, etc. It's not for everyone but you have to understand that what some poeple think is fun isn't for others, and vice versa.
As far as sandbox games being unprofitable, I think they're underestimating the size of the market. Eve is a niche game. It's designed specifically to NOT be big, as the devs value having a small, loyal customer base over a larger one that will vaporize the second the next big thing appears. I think a sandbox game targeted at the mainsteam could do very well. Perhaps AoC will be that game, we'll just have to wait and see.
Awards and votes do nothing for game development...wallets do.
If the 40,000 "voters" decided to speak with their wallets instead of their keyboards, and convinced 10 friends to do so as well, you might have something.
Otherwise, its just meaningless clicks on a computer screen...which sounds a lot like most of the games being produced these days.
So...uh... You're saying that Sandboxes suck, and everyone wants to play linear WoW's... Then we say, "look sir, you got all the games, we ain't got any games!" And then you direct me to go play the grandfather MMO's.. since there really are no NEW sandbox games.
Thats kinda like telling a RTS player that's tired of the lack of RTS games in favor of FPS games, that he can go play Dune or C&C 1. "Pleenty of RTS games out there..there's Dune , there's C&C 1, there's pleeentty. Go play em while I go play Chrysis or Bioshock or Halflife Orange Box." And then you proclaim that RTS suck and there are no RTS players left but a few hardcore idiots who can't leave Dune behind...
Sorry mate but if sandboxes were so wonderful, you wouldn't be tired of them. You are looking for a new game...Why?
I thought you wanted a player driven world? Only you had one. And you got bored of it.
You got bored of your player driven world. You ran out of things to do. The players, (you included), failed to drive it far enough for you.
That's why the rest of us like player driven worlds with loads of extra developer driven content. So we don't get bored. Even if the player driven element remains the same as it has always been, we can always pick up a new title and replace the developer driven part. There is always something new.
You were looking for the ultimate bonding experience, only the bonds you have made in your sandbox game haven't been strong enough to make you want to stay. It's had it's day for you. It's no longer enough.
So if you are looking for a new RTS that plays like Dune, you are going to be out of luck. The only thing that could be more unlucky for you than not finding a new RTS game that still plays the same as Dune, is if you actually do.
And no, I am not saying sandboxes suck, any more than I am saying Spitfires or 68 Chevvies' suck. They are often classic games. But I have moved with the times and nostalgia aside, compared to Typhoons and Lexus, 68 Chevvies and Spitfires do suck. They are inferior products. They have been superceded.
If you want a classic, buy a classic. They are on sale.
Modern cars can still do everything vintage cars can. Modern fighter aircraft can still do everything a vintage one can. But they can also do more. The same is true of current gen MMO's.
WoW has every element included in "sandbox" games. If you chose to play your game that way, you are catered for. It's just that it also has more. If you don't like the other bits, don't do them. There are plenty of things to do in WoW that I don't get off on. I just don't do them.
You want an exclusive game that only caters for people with a very limited scope of what they wish to be able to do in a game. Me, I want more. I want a game that provides as many different activites as it can. That caters for as many different play styles as it can. A game that anyone can enjoy. A game that everyone can enjoy. I want a game where if you don't want to do linear quests you don't have to. And I also want a game that if you don't like mob grinding you can break it up a bit with some sort of quest activity.
If you want to play a trader or a crafter, you can. Lots and lots of people do. There aren't many elements of previous MMO's that WoW hasn't picked up on. Or any of the other current gen MMO's either. They are all formula games.
WoW isn't linear or, it is linear and. It is not a case of linear or sandbox any more. You get both. Any new MMO that is unable to address both of these core elements to MMO RPG will fail in the marketplace. No developer in his right mind will attempt to make one.
what...exactly, do you "dislike" about sandbox games? the fact that you are free to do what you want? the fact that you arent held down by levels? you can advance in crafting or killing as you please? the bond created with your fellow warrior or craftsmen>? the player driven econony (all the good and bad that comes with it)? the clan wars? The sense of accomplishment not found in linear grind fests? enlighten us.
So many faulty premises.....where to start?
"the fact that you are free to do what you want?"
In what way are you "free" in a "sandbox" game, but not "free" in a "linear" game? Let's have some examples, shall we? I'll start. In WoW (AKA every sandbox touter's whipping-boy), just by way of example you are "free" to:
1. Raid
2. Do Daily Quests
3. Farm resource nodes
4. Farm MOB drops
5. Speculate on the AH
6. Level a toon through quests
7. Level a toon by grinding
8. Craft
9. Run Battlegrounds
10. Spawn camp for poops and grins
11. get a big group together and raid Orgrimar or Ironforge or Crossroads or Southshore
12. Grind rep
13. Run nubs through low level dungeons for money
14. Do world PVP
15. Run a 5-man instance
16. Fly around on your mount just for the hell of it
you can advance in crafting or killing as you please?
Same question....you can't advance in crafting or killing in WoW?
the bond created with your fellow warrior or craftsmen
Where is it written that linear play precludes one from forming bonds?
the player driven econony (all the good and bad that comes with it)
Since when is "sandbox" synonymous with "player driven economy" and "linear" antithetical to that concept? Last I checked, you couldn't by herbs, minerals, potions, or crafted armor or weapons from NPCs in WoW.
the clan wars?
I'm not even sure I know what this is, but who needs clan wars when you have Horde vs. Alliance?
The sense of accomplishment not found in linear grind fests? enlighten us.
Downing Illidan is not an accomplishment then? If not that, what is?
I played WoW for a long time (the better part of two years), I'm coming up on six months in Eve. They're so different it's hard to describe for someone who hasn't played both extensively.
Everything you say is true. All MMOs are very sandbox-y compared to more traditional single-player games or even mutliplayer games of other genres. When people talk about sandbox games in MMOs, they're usually refering to a gameplay style that is very unrestricted. The fact that you can list all the things to do is the very thing that people point to as being restrictive.
The best quick comparison I can make is to say that playing WoW is like going to Disneyland. It's fun, there's lots to do, plenty of attractions, and you some neat toys to take home. Playing Eve is like wandering around in a big city. There's always new places to go, people to meet, and things to do, but in the bustle of it all nobody is going to point you at them. And it's way too big to ever really see it all or do it all.
I'm not saying WoW is a bad game, it's a very good game. But a lot of people like the concept of a game where the world is open, players aren't segregated, there's no levels, people can switch gears on the fly without rerolling, there's no gear grind, people can take over and hold territory, advancement is 100% self-directed, etc, etc. It's not for everyone but you have to understand that what some poeple think is fun isn't for others, and vice versa.
As far as sandbox games being unprofitable, I think they're underestimating the size of the market. Eve is a niche game. It's designed specifically to NOT be big, as the devs value having a small, loyal customer base over a larger one that will vaporize the second the next big thing appears. I think a sandbox game targeted at the mainsteam could do very well. Perhaps AoC will be that game, we'll just have to wait and see.
Nice response. And for the record, I was playing Devil's Advocate. Well, sorta. I played SWG for 3 years, and WoW for 2, so I surely understand the concept of sandbox versus "linear".
The funny thing is, the two concepts need not be mutually exclusive. In my opinion, there's no reason that a game cannot have both directed content and cookie-cutter templates for the players who prefer to be entertained and handheld, as well as wide-open choices for player who like to do the hand-holding.
As an SWG player, I loved the fact (and frankly, it's the only thing that got me to stick with the game), that I could focus all my efforts on something as simple as running an energy and mining business. But I often found myself longing for some flashy, interesting story telling. Playing an MMO can often be all consuming, so many people want variety, and they want it all from the one MMO they play.
As a WoW player, I was "wowed" by the great artwork, directed questing and instances. But it felt a little hollow, because I could not really have an impact on the world I lived in. Other than my guild having to fill my raid spot, if I dropped off the face of the earth, nothing would be different. I wouldn't have any customers who missed me. No one would show up at my house wondering where the heck they were going to go to get that armor they always depended on.
So, I ask, why can't we have both in one game? What is it about a game like WoW that is so fundamentally antithetical to a player driven economy and the ability to control the environment. Why can't a game like SWG or Eve have engaging plots and story-driven content to fill those quiet hours?
____________________________________________ im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
Originally posted by rikilii The funny thing is, the two concepts need not be mutually exclusive. In my opinion, there's no reason that a game cannot have both directed content and cookie-cutter templates for the players who prefer to be entertained and handheld, as well as wide-open choices for player who like to do the hand-holding. [...] So, I ask, why can't we have both in one game? What is it about a game like WoW that is so fundamentally antithetical to a player driven economy and the ability to control the environment. Why can't a game like SWG or Eve have engaging plots and story-driven content to fill those quiet hours?
Nothing. I think the MMO scene today would be very different if NGE had never happened. I never played SWG but from what everyone tells me that was the direction it was headed before they decided to completely change the game (and alienate most of their playerbase in the process).
As it stands, for the past several years, most companies have seen WoW with all its millions of subs and even more millions of $$$, and instead of truly innovating they just try and copy what made WoW work. What they don't realize is that MMOs are less of a product and more of a service - people aren't going to switch to the newest thing in large numbers unless given some concrete reasons to do so. Hence, all the lackluster launches of 2006 and 2007.
2008 looks like it will be better but I doubt we'll see any games that offer a truly convergent experience for another couple of years. I'll be the first to try it though.
Originally posted by rikilii The funny thing is, the two concepts need not be mutually exclusive. In my opinion, there's no reason that a game cannot have both directed content and cookie-cutter templates for the players who prefer to be entertained and handheld, as well as wide-open choices for player who like to do the hand-holding. [...] So, I ask, why can't we have both in one game? What is it about a game like WoW that is so fundamentally antithetical to a player driven economy and the ability to control the environment. Why can't a game like SWG or Eve have engaging plots and story-driven content to fill those quiet hours?
Nothing. I think the MMO scene today would be very different if NGE had never happened. I never played SWG but from what everyone tells me that was the direction it was headed before they decided to completely change the game (and alienate most of their playerbase in the process).
As it stands, for the past several years, most companies have seen WoW with all its millions of subs and even more millions of $$$, and instead of truly innovating they just try and copy what made WoW work. What they don't realize is that MMOs are less of a product and more of a service - people aren't going to switch to the newest thing in large numbers unless given some concrete reasons to do so. Hence, all the lackluster launches of 2006 and 2007.
2008 looks like it will be better but I doubt we'll see any games that offer a truly convergent experience for another couple of years. I'll be the first to try it though.
Nice word: "convergent"!
You just invented the title for our new MMO genre.
From now on, all MMOs will fit into one of three categories:
1. Linear (Do what we tell you, when we tell you, like it or not);
2. Sandbox (Do whatever the hell you want, assuming you can find anything to do);
3. Convergent (Dominate the world with your real estate scheme....as soon as you finish killing 10 boars for the greater good of the Empire ... and 15 bars of latinum, 2000 sling-shot xp and 40 trade points in Skinning.)
____________________________________________ im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
I think that having a game with both linear and player-run content would be difficult. Let's look at some common features of linear games:
Classes: In a sandbox game, you should be able to do anything and be anyone you want. In a linear game, you get a short list of choices given to you by the developers. Immediately after meeting you, everyone decides who you are and what they expect you to do. Even if you're allowed to adopt other skills such as crafting, they're always secondary to what you pick when you create the character.
I think it's kind of funny that one of WOW's TV commercials emphasizes its restrictiveness. In a sandbox, Mr. T wouldn't need to hack the game to create a new class.
Levels: These affect various player dynamics a number of ways. First, they divide the playerbase. You only have reason to interact with people around your level. Everyone else will hunt in different areas and value different items. You know just by looking at someone whether you can take them in pvp. An exemplar system helps the linear side of the game by letting people quest with people not around their level, but not so much the sandbox side where interactions are a little less predictable.
Second, they make it difficult to have a real economy. Higher level characters are objectively better at producing everything than lower level players, and generally can't use anything lower levels can produce, so they have no reason to trade. Lower levels can't stick to trading with each other, because a high level can disrupt that market at will, which may be done with the best of intentions (Hey let's get ourselves a big stack of all those things the newbs are struggling to afford and hand them out for free!). Crafters therefore can't focus on just crafting, since they get shafted on the lower levels. The only thing they can do is focus on the static combat content until they can afford to craft, which makes it a barely profitable hobby rather than a vocation. Furthermore, anything that can be looted or gained from a quest is competition with the player interaction that comes from dealing with crafters.
Third, they force people to focus on the static content, if that's the only way to level. Sure, they could make it so there are many different ways to gain xp, but it would be very difficult to balance. Whoever chooses a path different than the one that leads to the fastest xp gain is going to feel shafted.
Another thing that linear games need to do is make the terrain static and predesigned. They need to do so in order to make sure the things the quests tell you to find are there. This doesn't go together with a popular sandbox feature, player building. Really, it restricts any impact a player can have on the world. Static content requires a static world.
But ok, what if you eliminated all these mechanics and just left an optional story and script? Well, it might work, but it would feel a little strange to have all this among a dynamic player run world without affecting it in any significant way. It would be almost like playing two different games. If it was a story about say, slaying a dragon, you wouldn't be a real life person playing a dragonslayer so much as a real life person playing a fantasy world person playing a dragonslayer.
These are my thoughts on the matter. I think SOME compromise between linear and sandbox can be reached, but ultimately they reflect very different visions of what an mmo should be. That's just my opinion. though.
If you're building an mmorpg, or if you'd like to share ideas or talk about this industry, visit Multiplayer Worlds.
Most people probably likes the idea of freeform style play, because it do sound awesome in theory.
But faced with the reality of it, what it will take in terms of investment to get something out of such a game, I think most people will just go back to their easily digested entertainment, much like they do with TV, Movies, Books, Art, Music or whatever form there migth be.
All forms of entertainment gives back to you as a multiple of what you put in.
But with the wold looking as it does most people will just look for the smallest common denominator, as in asking, "What can give me the most entertainment for the least personal investment".
Any producer that understands this and truely hits the sweetspot, like WoW, will indeed reek in the rewards.
And come the end of the day very few, if any, is in this for altruistic reasons, these things are big business and for the time being WoW is the yardstick against wich all others are measured.
I do not blame producers for trying to get in on that action.
This will settle though as they start to realise that for now this market only has room for one WoW and the road to success is not to try to topple the giant because lets face it, it is probably totally futile at this point.
If you offer the same thing that WoW has, without actually having WoW then how do you convince people to NOT play WoW and play your game?
After all if I want a WoW like gaming experience there is absolutely no substitute to the real thing.
In my opinion the only way to at least have a partial success to day you need to offer something different.
Be that what it may.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MMOs take more money to make than any other game type...period. investing that much money you are going to go with what works. What works is a goo investment.
Sandbox games have not worked despite the desire for the hardcore MMO players (like myself) who want to play them (the original SWG was great).
If you disagree...ask Blizzard...9 million + subs can't be wrong. If you were pitching a new MMO and you said it was completely different than WoW in every way...you would not even get your foot in the door.
MMOs take more money to make than any other game type...period. investing that much money you are going to go with what works. What works is a goo investment.
Sandbox games have not worked despite the desire for the hardcore MMO players (like myself) who want to play them (the original SWG was great).
If you disagree...ask Blizzard...9 million + subs can't be wrong. If you were pitching a new MMO and you said it was completely different than WoW in every way...you would not even get your foot in the door.
The Sims makes more money than any MMO has. HALO 3 outsold WoW by a lot.
Comments
I remember back in 1998 an MMO is considered a success/thriving when it has 300-500 users concurrently online.
Hehe yeah, and today we have WoW fanbois saying UO was a flop because it didn't have millions of players back then
But for us Sandbox gamers? We barely have any.
And since most games are of your liking..as in "non sandbox", we see that the majority of players play non sandbox games...
But for us Sandbox gamers? We barely have any.
And since most games are of your liking..as in "non sandbox", we see that the majority of players play non sandbox games...
Are you kidding me? That can't possible be true.
Futilez - Mature MMORPG Community
Correcting people since birth.
Actually i think you will find that most EvE fanbois didnt even give 2 seconds thought to this 'Award'. It certainly hasat bee on the EvE website. Ad when someoe posts about this site most just say 'so what'.
Also EvE ahs over 200,000 accounts not 15,000 or 20'000.
If anything its your fault EvE won for not voting or promoting the award thingy with your fellow WoW fanbois.
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god."
-- Jean Rostand
Eve has a little over 200K active, paid accounts. There's usually 30-40K of them logged on at any given moment in time.
And I didn't even know about these awards until someone posted that it had won them over on the Eve forums
SWG lost it's players after it nerfed them all.
Then you have plenty of games to playBut for us Sandbox gamers? We barely have any.
And since most games are of your liking..as in "non sandbox", we see that the majority of players play non sandbox games...
You have loads of them.
All the ye olde sandbox games are still up and running. You can sub if you want to.
You just don't want to play any of them either.
It's all mouth with you sandbox crowd.
My cat likes sandbox games.
I like MUDs.
what...exactly, do you "dislike" about sandbox games? the fact that you are free to do what you want? the fact that you arent held down by levels? you can advance in crafting or killing as you please? the bond created with your fellow warrior or craftsmen>? the player driven econony (all the good and bad that comes with it)? the clan wars? The sense of accomplishment not found in linear grind fests? enlighten us.
Wow there are a lot more naysayers than I thought, what are you people smoking? Sorry for the double, but, everyone keeps saying how there are so many sandbox games out. I only know of EvE...I dunno what you call SWG as i havent played it since it went sour. UO maybe? Any game you bring up besides EvE is EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY dated. THe only reason you could bring these up is to further your defense. None of the options are realistic.
So...uh...
You're saying that Sandboxes suck, and everyone wants to play linear WoW's...
Then we say, "look sir, you got all the games, we ain't got any games!"
And then you direct me to go play the grandfather MMO's.. since there really are no NEW sandbox games.
Thats kinda like telling a RTS player that's tired of the lack of RTS games in favor of FPS games, that he can go play Dune or C&C 1.
"Pleenty of RTS games out there..there's Dune , there's C&C 1, there's pleeentty. Go play em while I go play Chrysis or Bioshock or Halflife Orange Box."
And then you proclaim that RTS suck and there are no RTS players left but a few hardcore idiots who can't leave Dune behind...
I will also have to admit as a EVE player that the main reason that EVE won was because EVE players acually care enough about are game to take the time to vote and spread the word.
ROFL
Agreed. Well said ChicagoCub
A very small cafe latte.......at McDonalds.
____________________________________________
im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
what...exactly, do you "dislike" about sandbox games? the fact that you are free to do what you want? the fact that you arent held down by levels? you can advance in crafting or killing as you please? the bond created with your fellow warrior or craftsmen>? the player driven econony (all the good and bad that comes with it)? the clan wars? The sense of accomplishment not found in linear grind fests? enlighten us.
So many faulty premises.....where to start?
In what way are you "free" in a "sandbox" game, but not "free" in a "linear" game? Let's have some examples, shall we? I'll start. In WoW (AKA every sandbox touter's whipping-boy), just by way of example you are "free" to:
1. Raid
2. Do Daily Quests
3. Farm resource nodes
4. Farm MOB drops
5. Speculate on the AH
6. Level a toon through quests
7. Level a toon by grinding
8. Craft
9. Run Battlegrounds
10. Spawn camp for poops and grins
11. get a big group together and raid Orgrimar or Ironforge or Crossroads or Southshore
12. Grind rep
13. Run nubs through low level dungeons for money
14. Do world PVP
15. Run a 5-man instance
16. Fly around on your mount just for the hell of it
Same question....you can't advance in crafting or killing in WoW?
Where is it written that linear play precludes one from forming bonds?
Since when is "sandbox" synonymous with "player driven economy" and "linear" antithetical to that concept? Last I checked, you couldn't by herbs, minerals, potions, or crafted armor or weapons from NPCs in WoW.
I'm not even sure I know what this is, but who needs clan wars when you have Horde vs. Alliance?
Downing Illidan is not an accomplishment then? If not that, what is?
____________________________________________
im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
what...exactly, do you "dislike" about sandbox games? the fact that you are free to do what you want? the fact that you arent held down by levels? you can advance in crafting or killing as you please? the bond created with your fellow warrior or craftsmen>? the player driven econony (all the good and bad that comes with it)? the clan wars? The sense of accomplishment not found in linear grind fests? enlighten us.
So many faulty premises.....where to start?
In what way are you "free" in a "sandbox" game, but not "free" in a "linear" game? Let's have some examples, shall we? I'll start. In WoW (AKA every sandbox touter's whipping-boy), just by way of example you are "free" to:
1. Raid
2. Do Daily Quests
3. Farm resource nodes
4. Farm MOB drops
5. Speculate on the AH
6. Level a toon through quests
7. Level a toon by grinding
8. Craft
9. Run Battlegrounds
10. Spawn camp for poops and grins
11. get a big group together and raid Orgrimar or Ironforge or Crossroads or Southshore
12. Grind rep
13. Run nubs through low level dungeons for money
14. Do world PVP
15. Run a 5-man instance
16. Fly around on your mount just for the hell of it
Same question....you can't advance in crafting or killing in WoW?
Where is it written that linear play precludes one from forming bonds?
Since when is "sandbox" synonymous with "player driven economy" and "linear" antithetical to that concept? Last I checked, you couldn't by herbs, minerals, potions, or crafted armor or weapons from NPCs in WoW.
I'm not even sure I know what this is, but who needs clan wars when you have Horde vs. Alliance?
Downing Illidan is not an accomplishment then? If not that, what is?
I played WoW for a long time (the better part of two years), I'm coming up on six months in Eve. They're so different it's hard to describe for someone who hasn't played both extensively.
Everything you say is true. All MMOs are very sandbox-y compared to more traditional single-player games or even mutliplayer games of other genres. When people talk about sandbox games in MMOs, they're usually refering to a gameplay style that is very unrestricted. The fact that you can list all the things to do is the very thing that people point to as being restrictive.
The best quick comparison I can make is to say that playing WoW is like going to Disneyland. It's fun, there's lots to do, plenty of attractions, and you some neat toys to take home. Playing Eve is like wandering around in a big city. There's always new places to go, people to meet, and things to do, but in the bustle of it all nobody is going to point you at them. And it's way too big to ever really see it all or do it all.
I'm not saying WoW is a bad game, it's a very good game. But a lot of people like the concept of a game where the world is open, players aren't segregated, there's no levels, people can switch gears on the fly without rerolling, there's no gear grind, people can take over and hold territory, advancement is 100% self-directed, etc, etc. It's not for everyone but you have to understand that what some poeple think is fun isn't for others, and vice versa.
As far as sandbox games being unprofitable, I think they're underestimating the size of the market. Eve is a niche game. It's designed specifically to NOT be big, as the devs value having a small, loyal customer base over a larger one that will vaporize the second the next big thing appears. I think a sandbox game targeted at the mainsteam could do very well. Perhaps AoC will be that game, we'll just have to wait and see.
Awards and votes do nothing for game development...wallets do.
If the 40,000 "voters" decided to speak with their wallets instead of their keyboards, and convinced 10 friends to do so as well, you might have something.
Otherwise, its just meaningless clicks on a computer screen...which sounds a lot like most of the games being produced these days.
Sorry mate but if sandboxes were so wonderful, you wouldn't be tired of them. You are looking for a new game...Why?
I thought you wanted a player driven world? Only you had one. And you got bored of it.
You got bored of your player driven world. You ran out of things to do. The players, (you included), failed to drive it far enough for you.
That's why the rest of us like player driven worlds with loads of extra developer driven content. So we don't get bored. Even if the player driven element remains the same as it has always been, we can always pick up a new title and replace the developer driven part. There is always something new.
You were looking for the ultimate bonding experience, only the bonds you have made in your sandbox game haven't been strong enough to make you want to stay. It's had it's day for you. It's no longer enough.
So if you are looking for a new RTS that plays like Dune, you are going to be out of luck. The only thing that could be more unlucky for you than not finding a new RTS game that still plays the same as Dune, is if you actually do.
And no, I am not saying sandboxes suck, any more than I am saying Spitfires or 68 Chevvies' suck. They are often classic games. But I have moved with the times and nostalgia aside, compared to Typhoons and Lexus, 68 Chevvies and Spitfires do suck. They are inferior products. They have been superceded.
If you want a classic, buy a classic. They are on sale.
Modern cars can still do everything vintage cars can. Modern fighter aircraft can still do everything a vintage one can. But they can also do more. The same is true of current gen MMO's.
WoW has every element included in "sandbox" games. If you chose to play your game that way, you are catered for. It's just that it also has more. If you don't like the other bits, don't do them. There are plenty of things to do in WoW that I don't get off on. I just don't do them.
You want an exclusive game that only caters for people with a very limited scope of what they wish to be able to do in a game. Me, I want more. I want a game that provides as many different activites as it can. That caters for as many different play styles as it can. A game that anyone can enjoy. A game that everyone can enjoy. I want a game where if you don't want to do linear quests you don't have to. And I also want a game that if you don't like mob grinding you can break it up a bit with some sort of quest activity.
If you want to play a trader or a crafter, you can. Lots and lots of people do. There aren't many elements of previous MMO's that WoW hasn't picked up on. Or any of the other current gen MMO's either. They are all formula games.
WoW isn't linear or, it is linear and. It is not a case of linear or sandbox any more. You get both. Any new MMO that is unable to address both of these core elements to MMO RPG will fail in the marketplace. No developer in his right mind will attempt to make one.
what...exactly, do you "dislike" about sandbox games? the fact that you are free to do what you want? the fact that you arent held down by levels? you can advance in crafting or killing as you please? the bond created with your fellow warrior or craftsmen>? the player driven econony (all the good and bad that comes with it)? the clan wars? The sense of accomplishment not found in linear grind fests? enlighten us.
So many faulty premises.....where to start?
In what way are you "free" in a "sandbox" game, but not "free" in a "linear" game? Let's have some examples, shall we? I'll start. In WoW (AKA every sandbox touter's whipping-boy), just by way of example you are "free" to:
1. Raid
2. Do Daily Quests
3. Farm resource nodes
4. Farm MOB drops
5. Speculate on the AH
6. Level a toon through quests
7. Level a toon by grinding
8. Craft
9. Run Battlegrounds
10. Spawn camp for poops and grins
11. get a big group together and raid Orgrimar or Ironforge or Crossroads or Southshore
12. Grind rep
13. Run nubs through low level dungeons for money
14. Do world PVP
15. Run a 5-man instance
16. Fly around on your mount just for the hell of it
Same question....you can't advance in crafting or killing in WoW?
Where is it written that linear play precludes one from forming bonds?
Since when is "sandbox" synonymous with "player driven economy" and "linear" antithetical to that concept? Last I checked, you couldn't by herbs, minerals, potions, or crafted armor or weapons from NPCs in WoW.
I'm not even sure I know what this is, but who needs clan wars when you have Horde vs. Alliance?
Downing Illidan is not an accomplishment then? If not that, what is?
I played WoW for a long time (the better part of two years), I'm coming up on six months in Eve. They're so different it's hard to describe for someone who hasn't played both extensively.
Everything you say is true. All MMOs are very sandbox-y compared to more traditional single-player games or even mutliplayer games of other genres. When people talk about sandbox games in MMOs, they're usually refering to a gameplay style that is very unrestricted. The fact that you can list all the things to do is the very thing that people point to as being restrictive.
The best quick comparison I can make is to say that playing WoW is like going to Disneyland. It's fun, there's lots to do, plenty of attractions, and you some neat toys to take home. Playing Eve is like wandering around in a big city. There's always new places to go, people to meet, and things to do, but in the bustle of it all nobody is going to point you at them. And it's way too big to ever really see it all or do it all.
I'm not saying WoW is a bad game, it's a very good game. But a lot of people like the concept of a game where the world is open, players aren't segregated, there's no levels, people can switch gears on the fly without rerolling, there's no gear grind, people can take over and hold territory, advancement is 100% self-directed, etc, etc. It's not for everyone but you have to understand that what some poeple think is fun isn't for others, and vice versa.
As far as sandbox games being unprofitable, I think they're underestimating the size of the market. Eve is a niche game. It's designed specifically to NOT be big, as the devs value having a small, loyal customer base over a larger one that will vaporize the second the next big thing appears. I think a sandbox game targeted at the mainsteam could do very well. Perhaps AoC will be that game, we'll just have to wait and see.
Nice response. And for the record, I was playing Devil's Advocate. Well, sorta. I played SWG for 3 years, and WoW for 2, so I surely understand the concept of sandbox versus "linear".
The funny thing is, the two concepts need not be mutually exclusive. In my opinion, there's no reason that a game cannot have both directed content and cookie-cutter templates for the players who prefer to be entertained and handheld, as well as wide-open choices for player who like to do the hand-holding.
As an SWG player, I loved the fact (and frankly, it's the only thing that got me to stick with the game), that I could focus all my efforts on something as simple as running an energy and mining business. But I often found myself longing for some flashy, interesting story telling. Playing an MMO can often be all consuming, so many people want variety, and they want it all from the one MMO they play.
As a WoW player, I was "wowed" by the great artwork, directed questing and instances. But it felt a little hollow, because I could not really have an impact on the world I lived in. Other than my guild having to fill my raid spot, if I dropped off the face of the earth, nothing would be different. I wouldn't have any customers who missed me. No one would show up at my house wondering where the heck they were going to go to get that armor they always depended on.
So, I ask, why can't we have both in one game? What is it about a game like WoW that is so fundamentally antithetical to a player driven economy and the ability to control the environment. Why can't a game like SWG or Eve have engaging plots and story-driven content to fill those quiet hours?
____________________________________________
im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
Nothing. I think the MMO scene today would be very different if NGE had never happened. I never played SWG but from what everyone tells me that was the direction it was headed before they decided to completely change the game (and alienate most of their playerbase in the process).
As it stands, for the past several years, most companies have seen WoW with all its millions of subs and even more millions of $$$, and instead of truly innovating they just try and copy what made WoW work. What they don't realize is that MMOs are less of a product and more of a service - people aren't going to switch to the newest thing in large numbers unless given some concrete reasons to do so. Hence, all the lackluster launches of 2006 and 2007.
2008 looks like it will be better but I doubt we'll see any games that offer a truly convergent experience for another couple of years. I'll be the first to try it though.
Nothing. I think the MMO scene today would be very different if NGE had never happened. I never played SWG but from what everyone tells me that was the direction it was headed before they decided to completely change the game (and alienate most of their playerbase in the process).
As it stands, for the past several years, most companies have seen WoW with all its millions of subs and even more millions of $$$, and instead of truly innovating they just try and copy what made WoW work. What they don't realize is that MMOs are less of a product and more of a service - people aren't going to switch to the newest thing in large numbers unless given some concrete reasons to do so. Hence, all the lackluster launches of 2006 and 2007.
2008 looks like it will be better but I doubt we'll see any games that offer a truly convergent experience for another couple of years. I'll be the first to try it though.
Nice word: "convergent"!
You just invented the title for our new MMO genre.
From now on, all MMOs will fit into one of three categories:
1. Linear (Do what we tell you, when we tell you, like it or not);
2. Sandbox (Do whatever the hell you want, assuming you can find anything to do);
3. Convergent (Dominate the world with your real estate scheme....as soon as you finish killing 10 boars for the greater good of the Empire ... and 15 bars of latinum, 2000 sling-shot xp and 40 trade points in Skinning.)
____________________________________________
im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
I think that having a game with both linear and player-run content would be difficult. Let's look at some common features of linear games:
Classes: In a sandbox game, you should be able to do anything and be anyone you want. In a linear game, you get a short list of choices given to you by the developers. Immediately after meeting you, everyone decides who you are and what they expect you to do. Even if you're allowed to adopt other skills such as crafting, they're always secondary to what you pick when you create the character.
I think it's kind of funny that one of WOW's TV commercials emphasizes its restrictiveness. In a sandbox, Mr. T wouldn't need to hack the game to create a new class.
Levels: These affect various player dynamics a number of ways. First, they divide the playerbase. You only have reason to interact with people around your level. Everyone else will hunt in different areas and value different items. You know just by looking at someone whether you can take them in pvp. An exemplar system helps the linear side of the game by letting people quest with people not around their level, but not so much the sandbox side where interactions are a little less predictable.
Second, they make it difficult to have a real economy. Higher level characters are objectively better at producing everything than lower level players, and generally can't use anything lower levels can produce, so they have no reason to trade. Lower levels can't stick to trading with each other, because a high level can disrupt that market at will, which may be done with the best of intentions (Hey let's get ourselves a big stack of all those things the newbs are struggling to afford and hand them out for free!). Crafters therefore can't focus on just crafting, since they get shafted on the lower levels. The only thing they can do is focus on the static combat content until they can afford to craft, which makes it a barely profitable hobby rather than a vocation. Furthermore, anything that can be looted or gained from a quest is competition with the player interaction that comes from dealing with crafters.
Third, they force people to focus on the static content, if that's the only way to level. Sure, they could make it so there are many different ways to gain xp, but it would be very difficult to balance. Whoever chooses a path different than the one that leads to the fastest xp gain is going to feel shafted.
Another thing that linear games need to do is make the terrain static and predesigned. They need to do so in order to make sure the things the quests tell you to find are there. This doesn't go together with a popular sandbox feature, player building. Really, it restricts any impact a player can have on the world. Static content requires a static world.
But ok, what if you eliminated all these mechanics and just left an optional story and script? Well, it might work, but it would feel a little strange to have all this among a dynamic player run world without affecting it in any significant way. It would be almost like playing two different games. If it was a story about say, slaying a dragon, you wouldn't be a real life person playing a dragonslayer so much as a real life person playing a fantasy world person playing a dragonslayer.
These are my thoughts on the matter. I think SOME compromise between linear and sandbox can be reached, but ultimately they reflect very different visions of what an mmo should be. That's just my opinion. though.
If you're building an mmorpg, or if you'd like to share ideas or talk about this industry, visit Multiplayer Worlds.
Most people probably likes the idea of freeform style play, because it do sound awesome in theory.
But faced with the reality of it, what it will take in terms of investment to get something out of such a game, I think most people will just go back to their easily digested entertainment, much like they do with TV, Movies, Books, Art, Music or whatever form there migth be.
All forms of entertainment gives back to you as a multiple of what you put in.
But with the wold looking as it does most people will just look for the smallest common denominator, as in asking, "What can give me the most entertainment for the least personal investment".
Any producer that understands this and truely hits the sweetspot, like WoW, will indeed reek in the rewards.
And come the end of the day very few, if any, is in this for altruistic reasons, these things are big business and for the time being WoW is the yardstick against wich all others are measured.
I do not blame producers for trying to get in on that action.
This will settle though as they start to realise that for now this market only has room for one WoW and the road to success is not to try to topple the giant because lets face it, it is probably totally futile at this point.
If you offer the same thing that WoW has, without actually having WoW then how do you convince people to NOT play WoW and play your game?
After all if I want a WoW like gaming experience there is absolutely no substitute to the real thing.
In my opinion the only way to at least have a partial success to day you need to offer something different.
Be that what it may.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My pig like MUD(s)
Futilez - Mature MMORPG Community
Correcting people since birth.
MMOs take more money to make than any other game type...period. investing that much money you are going to go with what works. What works is a goo investment.
Sandbox games have not worked despite the desire for the hardcore MMO players (like myself) who want to play them (the original SWG was great).
If you disagree...ask Blizzard...9 million + subs can't be wrong. If you were pitching a new MMO and you said it was completely different than WoW in every way...you would not even get your foot in the door.
The Sims makes more money than any MMO has. HALO 3 outsold WoW by a lot.