Skipping right to the end and posting a reply that I'm sure was done a half a dozen times already. OP described Darkfall, only with more players.
But wait, why doesn't DF have more players? Perhaps because its design caters to a small niche of players?
There are massive MMO's out there, and even DF has had battles of several hundred or more, seriously, what more can one ask for?
Sometimes people can't see the forest for the trees.
Darkfall has awful UI, terrible gfx and sound and has an overall "cheap" feel to it. Probably big reasons why not many people play it. I tried it myself but could not get over the clunky combat and terrible sound.
"that game doesn't even come close to the subs wow has. it sucks."
"Wow has more subs."
"Game *X* is doing pretty well, look how many subs they have.*
"Game *X* isn't doing that well. they only have *Y* subs"
---
Do any of these people who constantly refer to subscription numbers ever stop to think what a 'successful' amount of subs was before 2004? I mean, do these people really think EQ had 5-10million players? If i remember correctly, EQ topped out somewhere around 350,000 active subscriptions.... and that was record breaking for the time.
Nowadays, you hear people talking down about the games that haven't reached WoW subscription standards. As if an MMO that doesn't boast a projected 10million subs is doomed to fail, and be called "dead".
Here's some food for thought:
EQ avg at about 2000 people online per server during normal play hours.
Vanilla WoW had a max of 3000 (and the servers broke or became really sluggish when it got that high) -
BC WoW jumped server cap to about 6000 - WotLK WoW at about 10000 (of which still, avg. heavy server load about 6k players) - and I honestly don't know what the server cap is for Cata, so I won't guess.
EvE topped out at about 65,000 logged on, and daily peaks at 50-51k. 1 server.
Now, the LFG tool and the BG queues from WoW put players together from different realms, max being 40 vs 40.
WoW has millions of players, but the most you'll typically see, and be able to play *WITH/AGAINST* are about 80 people, and that's only in instanced or scripted battleground events. Otherwise, you can sit in a main city all day and count how many different people you'll see, and you won't break a few hundred.
In EVE, I've been in 1 solar system and seen 1000+ players all flying around in ships or docked or fighting or ... w/e. (and there are over 5000 solar systems, each counting as a whole zone/map)
My point is, how many subs doesn't matter. Doesn't even give you an idea of how many people you'll actually be able to interract with in-game. How many servers are the players spread out between? How many regions? How many players does each server support? How many players per screen? This all matters way more than sub numbers to someone who wants to have a massively-multiplayer experience.
Well you are spot on for the most part. However, a lot of people have been saying this same thing for many years. I have been a huge advocate of sandbox style games like UO and SWG where the players dictate the economy and the massive world. Games like WoW are too themepark for me. They don't want you to be too creative on your own, you got to play by their rules and do their quests that lack any innovation or appeal for me.
However, when players regulate the massive worlds it can cause for a great deal of issues, as seen in UO with hacking, exploites, and constant griefing. This is where the devs need to put their focus and be the law enforcement of a basically free world that is controlled by players. Just create a massive world and let the players make their own paths, it's a blast to be a part of that aspect of the game, instead of having everything carved out for you already.
Because almost all MMOs are shooting for the WoW audience by making WoW over and over again. They're styled after a game (WoW) that has no real redeeming qualities beyond being easy, which is already based off the worst features of another game (EQ) and not the redeeming social and player interaction features.
I know! So popular that LoTRO is earning how much for Turbine again?
LoTRO went F2P cause DDO went F2P before and made 300% profit for Turbine.
Yeah, and I'm sure LoTRO profits are smaller than all these 'hugely popular sandbox games'! /sarcasm
I have nothing against sandbox games, but the current market is saying 'we want themepark'.
They haven't made a proper sand box game since Eve and for some of us its just not the sand box for us. Other then that they just do not make sand box games in favor of making continually fail theme parks. I've played both LotRO and DDO just to give them a chance and while not horrible they are pretty much more of the same. DDO's reliance on bombarding me with in game sales was a turn off as well. Played LotRO before it went F2P but expect its very similar to DDO having given Turbine multiple chances.
Basically the current market has never seen a sand box game because the vast majority (90-95% is my guess) haven't played UO or Eve. Ryzom and Darkfall both do not count either. I've played both and they aren't very sand box. Darkfall hardly at all, Ryzom you can argue it but way too much digging.
I'm guessing you've never heard of Minecraft nor about its success as well when you said essentially the market doesn't want sand box games!
I didn't realize Minecraft was an MMO.
Sandbox single player games does very well, critically and commercially.
Fallout3/NV, Elder scrolls etc
Sandbox MMO? ehh... not as much as themepark MMOs
You can say 'this is not really a sandbox' all you want but when games with Sandbox elements don't do well while games with theme park element does, what do you think a dev will do?
They are such lazy bums for daring to make money for school for their kids/food/clothes/house! /sarcasm
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
1. Nothing has really changed since Everquest. Played one pretty much you have played the majority. There are a few exceptions but it isn't enough to keep me entertained for the long term at the moment.
2. Quests are too generic. Sick of go fetch and go kill quests.
3. MMOs lack a real exciting stoy like Mass Effect 2, Starcraft or Dragon Age provides.
4. Boring combat. Kill mob, loot mob and move on to the next. Yawnnnnn!
1. Nothing has really changed since Everquest. Played one pretty much you have played the majority. There are a few exceptions but it isn't enough to keep me entertained for the long term at the moment.
2. Quests are too generic. Sick of go fetch and go kill quests.
3. MMOs lack a real exciting stoy like Mass Effect 2, Starcraft or Dragon Age provides.
4. Boring combat. Kill mob, loot mob and move on to the next. Yawnnnnn!
To be perfectly fair, ME2/Starcraft/DA are all single player which the industry has 40+ years experience in making.
MMO is a new genre so naturally it lags in terms of story telling. I think SWTOR will change that though. Good Story = Bioware IMO.
If you look at the quests/combat, it is the 'immersion/story' that makes it not generic or boring not the 'mechanics'. Lets take Dragon Age;
DA combat (on the console) was terrible. Absolutely god-awful but the story was a classic Bioware which sucked you in till you finished the game. The quests in-between was not that great either, go here and kill darkspawn/orcs/bandits etc.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I know! So popular that LoTRO is earning how much for Turbine again?
LoTRO went F2P cause DDO went F2P before and made 300% profit for Turbine.
Yeah, and I'm sure LoTRO profits are smaller than all these 'hugely popular sandbox games'! /sarcasm
I have nothing against sandbox games, but the current market is saying 'we want themepark'.
They haven't made a proper sand box game since Eve and for some of us its just not the sand box for us. Other then that they just do not make sand box games in favor of making continually fail theme parks. I've played both LotRO and DDO just to give them a chance and while not horrible they are pretty much more of the same. DDO's reliance on bombarding me with in game sales was a turn off as well. Played LotRO before it went F2P but expect its very similar to DDO having given Turbine multiple chances.
Basically the current market has never seen a sand box game because the vast majority (90-95% is my guess) haven't played UO or Eve. Ryzom and Darkfall both do not count either. I've played both and they aren't very sand box. Darkfall hardly at all, Ryzom you can argue it but way too much digging.
I'm guessing you've never heard of Minecraft nor about its success as well when you said essentially the market doesn't want sand box games!
I didn't realize Minecraft was an MMO.
Sandbox single player games does very well, critically and commercially.
Fallout3/NV, Elder scrolls etc
Sandbox MMO? ehh... not as much as themepark MMOs
You can say 'this is not really a sandbox' all you want but when games with Sandbox elements don't do well while games with theme park element does, what do you think a dev will do?
They are such lazy bums for daring to make money for school for their kids/food/clothes/house! /sarcasm
Minecraft isn't a mmo but it is definitely multi-player. Up to 256 player servers that I've seen so it's surely moving in the right direction. Especially for a game that's nigh a month into Beta! They haven't even finished large parts of the game and people are mad for it.
I find that when I'm playing a game that seems rote and rehashed I always say to myself, "Wait a minute! I'm feeding peoples families by supporting their half-assery so that makes it ok.", yea I do that all the time.
1. Nothing has really changed since Everquest. Played one pretty much you have played the majority. There are a few exceptions but it isn't enough to keep me entertained for the long term at the moment.
2. Quests are too generic. Sick of go fetch and go kill quests.
3. MMOs lack a real exciting stoy like Mass Effect 2, Starcraft or Dragon Age provides.
4. Boring combat. Kill mob, loot mob and move on to the next. Yawnnnnn!
To be perfectly fair, ME2/Starcraft/DA are all single player which the industry has 40+ years experience in making.
MMO is a new genre so naturally it lags in terms of story telling. I think SWTOR will change that though. Good Story = Bioware IMO.
If you look at the quests/combat, it is the 'immersion/story' that makes it not generic or boring not the 'mechanics'. Lets take Dragon Age;
DA combat (on the console) was terrible. Absolutely god-awful but the story was a classic Bioware which sucked you in till you finished the game. The quests in-between was not that great either, go here and kill darkspawn/orcs/bandits etc.
DA on the PC was god awful mechanic wise I really didnt like the stop start of the combat but as you say the stroy sucked me in till the very end and made me buy all DLC.
But the one thing that has me bored is the player interaction communitys are dieing the more we are spoon fed linear crap.
We have to get back to creating our own stories our own reasons for being a MMO should be a alternate life not a game.
I've said in the past I didnt play a char in SWG, I WAS itreh Wirne the crazy Krayt killing pikewoman.
lol this thread is still going with the same boring crap over and over.
"OMg you're only playing with 25-40 people, not 10000000 people". Really? What's this obsession with knowing that there are that many people around you? Are you that lonely that you need to be around thousands of people (99% of which you won't even talk to)?
I would take a tightly knit group of 25 over a mindless 1000 person zerg fest any day of the week. You can call it 'massive' and the other one non-massive, but I prefer to have an impact than ot be another mindless ant.
I saw someone post that the ideal game has everyone in one game server world. Again, because selective perception had you skip over it when I wrote it previously: What happens if the game gets popular and you have 100's of guilds trying to run the same raid at the same time? That game will flop faster than you can say "im a sandbox fanboy".
Sandboxes can be a lot of fun. Eve is my only current subscription (though I'm finding it harder and harder to log on). Sandboxes defnitely have potential if they are done right. What I don't understand is why sandboxers have this misplaced sense of superiority and elitism when compared to themeparkers? They are two different styles, if you don't like the other that's fine, but why post thread after thread explaining why "open world, ffa pvp, affecting the world etc" is better? You're not going to convince anyone, and you only sound like a silly religious fanatic.
1. Nothing has really changed since Everquest. Played one pretty much you have played the majority. There are a few exceptions but it isn't enough to keep me entertained for the long term at the moment.
2. Quests are too generic. Sick of go fetch and go kill quests.
3. MMOs lack a real exciting stoy like Mass Effect 2, Starcraft or Dragon Age provides.
4. Boring combat. Kill mob, loot mob and move on to the next. Yawnnnnn!
To be perfectly fair, ME2/Starcraft/DA are all single player which the industry has 40+ years experience in making.
MMO is a new genre so naturally it lags in terms of story telling. I think SWTOR will change that though. Good Story = Bioware IMO.
If you look at the quests/combat, it is the 'immersion/story' that makes it not generic or boring not the 'mechanics'. Lets take Dragon Age;
DA combat (on the console) was terrible. Absolutely god-awful but the story was a classic Bioware which sucked you in till you finished the game. The quests in-between was not that great either, go here and kill darkspawn/orcs/bandits etc.
DA on the PC was god awful mechanic wise I really didnt like the stop start of the combat but as you say the stroy sucked me in till the very end and made me buy all DLC.
But the one thing that has me bored is the player interaction communitys are dieing the more we are spoon fed linear crap.
We have to get back to creating our own stories our own reasons for being a MMO should be a alternate life not a game.
I've said in the past I didnt play a char in SWG, I WAS itreh Wirne the crazy Krayt killing pikewoman.
I have to agree with thamighty213 here that making my own story and "living" my character was far more enjoyable then being set on linear quest hub rails through soulless content. In fact that just might be what originally attracted me from single player rpgs to mmorpgs and now they're moving away from that more and more.
Sandbox single player games does very well, critically and commercially.
Fallout3/NV, Elder scrolls etc
Sandbox MMO? ehh... not as much as themepark MMOs
You can say 'this is not really a sandbox' all you want but when games with Sandbox elements don't do well while games with theme park element does, what do you think a dev will do?
They are such lazy bums for daring to make money for school for their kids/food/clothes/house! /sarcasm
Minecraft isn't a mmo but it is definitely multi-player. Up to 256 player servers that I've seen so it's surely moving in the right direction. Especially for a game that's nigh a month into Beta! They haven't even finished large parts of the game and people are mad for it.
I find that when I'm playing a game that seems rote and rehashed I always say to myself, "Wait a minute! I'm feeding peoples families by supporting their half-assery so that makes it ok.", yea I do that all the time.
Why are you playing a game that seems 'rote (? did you mean Rot?) and rehashed' to you?
Whether you accept the financial realities or not is up to you, but those who are in the real world know that when the majority of the market says ' We want theme park', there will be more games with theme park elements on the market.
I am very surprised by how my reply to 'Devs are not lazy, they just want to make a game that will sell so they have money' became this far though.
Shoot! i'm sorry, your logic was 'Devs are lazy cause they aren't making the game I want' wasn't it?
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Sandbox single player games does very well, critically and commercially.
Fallout3/NV, Elder scrolls etc
Sandbox MMO? ehh... not as much as themepark MMOs
You can say 'this is not really a sandbox' all you want but when games with Sandbox elements don't do well while games with theme park element does, what do you think a dev will do?
They are such lazy bums for daring to make money for school for their kids/food/clothes/house! /sarcasm
Minecraft isn't a mmo but it is definitely multi-player. Up to 256 player servers that I've seen so it's surely moving in the right direction. Especially for a game that's nigh a month into Beta! They haven't even finished large parts of the game and people are mad for it.
I find that when I'm playing a game that seems rote and rehashed I always say to myself, "Wait a minute! I'm feeding peoples families by supporting their half-assery so that makes it ok.", yea I do that all the time.
Why are you playing a game that seems 'rote (? did you mean Rot?) and rehashed' to you?
Whether you accept the financial realities or not is up to you, but those who are in the real world know that when the majority of the market says ' We want theme park', there will be more games with theme park elements on the market.
I am very surprised by how my reply to 'Devs are not lazy, they just want to make a game that will sell so they have money' became this far though.
Shoot! i'm sorry, your logic was 'Devs are lazy cause they aren't making the game I want' wasn't it?
Spot on. These sandboxers in this thread are just self absorbed, self centered, and absolutely selfish. "Your style of play sucks, mine is better. Make my game or you're lazy and destroying the MMORPG genre. As a matter of fact, you're not even playing an MMORPG anymore, because I decided you're not 'massive'".
You don't have to like WoW's scheme. Not everyone will. However, despite not liking it, you can't ignore that what they do, they do well. If any sandbox (outside of EvE I suppose) took care of their business half as well as wow does you would have plenty of these games that you want to enjoy. I'm looking forward to ArcheAge, but like I said, they have to make sure to take care of their business right.
Sandbox single player games does very well, critically and commercially.
Fallout3/NV, Elder scrolls etc
Sandbox MMO? ehh... not as much as themepark MMOs
You can say 'this is not really a sandbox' all you want but when games with Sandbox elements don't do well while games with theme park element does, what do you think a dev will do?
They are such lazy bums for daring to make money for school for their kids/food/clothes/house! /sarcasm
Minecraft isn't a mmo but it is definitely multi-player. Up to 256 player servers that I've seen so it's surely moving in the right direction. Especially for a game that's nigh a month into Beta! They haven't even finished large parts of the game and people are mad for it.
I find that when I'm playing a game that seems rote and rehashed I always say to myself, "Wait a minute! I'm feeding peoples families by supporting their half-assery so that makes it ok.", yea I do that all the time.
Why are you playing a game that seems 'rote (? did you mean Rot?) and rehashed' to you?
Whether you accept the financial realities or not is up to you, but those who are in the real world know that when the majority of the market says ' We want theme park', there will be more games with theme park elements on the market.
I am very surprised by how my reply to 'Devs are not lazy, they just want to make a game that will sell so they have money' became this far though.
Shoot! i'm sorry, your logic was 'Devs are lazy cause they aren't making the game I want' wasn't it?
Please use a dictionary and then maybe you could better understand my reply. I'm coming from the stand point that more often then not games have become far more similar to each other than say UO was similar to EQ. The logic behind what I'm saying revolves around the fact that the market for the mmorpg genre is saturated with games with a very similar feel to them. When people say WoW clone they're saying it feels VERY similar to WoW. Developers are doing this because they want to go after the largest market share but that shouldn't have anything to do with making a game that I'm going to want to play. Sure it appeals to the majority but excludes the minorities. Eventually even the majority will become bored of playing such similar titles again and again. Developers aren't necessarily lazy but they are damned terrified of innovation cutting them out of potential profit to the point of stagnation of the genre.
I know! So popular that LoTRO is earning how much for Turbine again?
LoTRO went F2P cause DDO went F2P before and made 300% profit for Turbine.
Yeah, and I'm sure LoTRO profits are smaller than all these 'hugely popular sandbox games'! /sarcasm
I have nothing against sandbox games, but the current market is saying 'we want themepark'.
They haven't made a proper sand box game since Eve and for some of us its just not the sand box for us. Other then that they just do not make sand box games in favor of making continually fail theme parks. I've played both LotRO and DDO just to give them a chance and while not horrible they are pretty much more of the same. DDO's reliance on bombarding me with in game sales was a turn off as well. Played LotRO before it went F2P but expect its very similar to DDO having given Turbine multiple chances.
Basically the current market has never seen a sand box game because the vast majority (90-95% is my guess) haven't played UO or Eve. Ryzom and Darkfall both do not count either. I've played both and they aren't very sand box. Darkfall hardly at all, Ryzom you can argue it but way too much digging.
I'm guessing you've never heard of Minecraft nor about its success as well when you said essentially the market doesn't want sand box games!
I didn't realize Minecraft was an MMO.
Sandbox single player games does very well, critically and commercially.
Fallout3/NV, Elder scrolls etc
Sandbox MMO? ehh... not as much as themepark MMOs
You can say 'this is not really a sandbox' all you want but when games with Sandbox elements don't do well while games with theme park element does, what do you think a dev will do?
They are such lazy bums for daring to make money for school for their kids/food/clothes/house! /sarcasm
Fair to note why those single/multi-player sandbox games fare well compared to their mmo counterparts too.
Modability. Any avid player of Minecraft probably learns pretty quickly that you can play with custom textures for anything and everything in the game. Most probably also know about all the gameplay enhancement mods. Then there's the more obscure mod/hacks to replace models and tweak the core gameplay (though those don't tend to be released).
It's the same case with Elder Scrolls, Fallout, and many other 'sandbox single/multi players'. Even with Spore, and more so it's galactic adventures expansion, it's about making new things and making new gameplay, especially if you get into some of the mods there.
The ability to adapt the gameplay itself to get what you want out of it is a very important thing to these single player sandboxes. You wouldn't see people with lasers and motorcycles running around a modern city in Oblivion (all real mods) if it weren't for that factor.
MMOs have a hard time with that. Mostly because if they let you legally modify gameplay to fit your preferences alongside all the other tweaking being done you'd be potentially sabotaging the fun of everyone else on a server with unbalanced and buggy mechanics.
Like for example, the fact that people call EVE a 'proper' or 'good' sandbox MMO. That depresses me. The fact that one of the best options available has no ability to modify the mechanics, combat, aesthetics, story, skill progression, abilities, or even build a house to call your own depresses me. Sure you can socket different things into a ship hull to tailor it a bit, that's not the same as in Fallout3 making the player have mind control powers (real mod) and being able to call down an army to have large scale conflicts (real mod). Or making a motorcycle(real mod), hovering chair(real mod), submarine (real mod), etc. Sure you can make a big clan and do clannish stuff, earn money, level up, attack other clans, gank people, and farm resources. Minecraft and even Mount&Blade let you do that thanks to several mods.
Pretty much, thanks to the ability to modify these non-mmo games more freely than MMOs, they contain more longevity for the average player more or less because they let you expand the world as you see fit, re-imagine most anything you use in the game into something entirely different, or even play a different game if you want without actually playing a different game(Like Real Time Settler Mod for Fallout 3).
Mods make these things considerably more varied, considerably larger, and considerably more fun. MMOs can't do that yet, because no one's come up with a safe way of doing so.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Sandbox single player games does very well, critically and commercially.
Fallout3/NV, Elder scrolls etc
Sandbox MMO? ehh... not as much as themepark MMOs
You can say 'this is not really a sandbox' all you want but when games with Sandbox elements don't do well while games with theme park element does, what do you think a dev will do?
They are such lazy bums for daring to make money for school for their kids/food/clothes/house! /sarcasm
Minecraft isn't a mmo but it is definitely multi-player. Up to 256 player servers that I've seen so it's surely moving in the right direction. Especially for a game that's nigh a month into Beta! They haven't even finished large parts of the game and people are mad for it.
I find that when I'm playing a game that seems rote and rehashed I always say to myself, "Wait a minute! I'm feeding peoples families by supporting their half-assery so that makes it ok.", yea I do that all the time.
Why are you playing a game that seems 'rote (? did you mean Rot?) and rehashed' to you?
Whether you accept the financial realities or not is up to you, but those who are in the real world know that when the majority of the market says ' We want theme park', there will be more games with theme park elements on the market.
I am very surprised by how my reply to 'Devs are not lazy, they just want to make a game that will sell so they have money' became this far though.
Shoot! i'm sorry, your logic was 'Devs are lazy cause they aren't making the game I want' wasn't it?
Please use a dictionary and then maybe you could better understand my reply. I'm coming from the stand point that more often then not games have become far more similar to each other than say UO was similar to EQ. The logic behind what I'm saying revolves around the fact that the market for the mmorpg genre is saturated with games with a very similar feel to them. When people say WoW clone they're saying it feels VERY similar to WoW. Developers are doing this because they want to go after the largest market share but that shouldn't have anything to do with making a game that I'm going to want to play. Sure it appeals to the majority but excludes the minorities. Eventually even the majority will become bored of playing such similar titles again and again. Developers aren't necessarily lazy but they are damned terrified of innovation cutting them out of potential profit to the point of stagnation of the genre.
Or maybe it's because they have kids to feed? I really don't get this argument. This happens to all games. Have you looked at FPS games? They're all the same, every single one of them. One has blowing up buildings, the other has vehicles. One is futuristic, and another is World War 2-eqsue.
How about RTS games, they're so innovative and cutting edge right? Did the majority get tired of these games? Are they suffering and hurting for innovation? Look at C&C4. They tried to be innovative by taking out the resource collection part. The game has generally been accepted as the worst C&C to date. Innovation doesn't always = better.
You have few choices here. You can make your own game, you can fund the capital game to have said game built, or you can put on one hell of a presentation with supporting numbers to get an investor on board. Don't under estimate the power of the dollar.
Please use a dictionary and then maybe you could better understand my reply. I'm coming from the stand point that more often then not games have become far more similar to each other than say UO was similar to EQ. The logic behind what I'm saying revolves around the fact that the market for the mmorpg genre is saturated with games with a very similar feel to them. When people say WoW clone they're saying it feels VERY similar to WoW. Developers are doing this because they want to go after the largest market share but that shouldn't have anything to do with making a game that I'm going to want to play. Sure it appeals to the majority but excludes the minorities. Eventually even the majority will become bored of playing such similar titles again and again. Developers aren't necessarily lazy but they are damned terrified of innovation cutting them out of potential profit to the point of stagnation of the genre.
If demands are there someone will make it. It is something called 'free-market'/capitalism'
So far, the demand is just not there.
Like I said from the beginning, 'Devs aren't lazy, they just want to make games that sell so they can have money'. I see nothing wrong with this.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Please use a dictionary and then maybe you could better understand my reply. I'm coming from the stand point that more often then not games have become far more similar to each other than say UO was similar to EQ. The logic behind what I'm saying revolves around the fact that the market for the mmorpg genre is saturated with games with a very similar feel to them. When people say WoW clone they're saying it feels VERY similar to WoW. Developers are doing this because they want to go after the largest market share but that shouldn't have anything to do with making a game that I'm going to want to play. Sure it appeals to the majority but excludes the minorities. Eventually even the majority will become bored of playing such similar titles again and again. Developers aren't necessarily lazy but they are damned terrified of innovation cutting them out of potential profit to the point of stagnation of the genre.
If demands are there someone will make it. It is something called 'free-market'/capitalism'
So far, the demand is just not there.
Like I said from the beginning, 'Devs aren't lazy, they just want to make games that sell so they can have money'. I see nothing wrong with this.
I agree with you both.
That being said. Capitalism sucks, and is not condusive to a progressive society. Only supports fear of innovation, and trampling on your neighbors for profit gain.
Let's start a new economy so we can make good games just for the hell of making good games, not to play tug-o-war with subscription numbers. Who's with me!
Sandbox single player games does very well, critically and commercially.
Fallout3/NV, Elder scrolls etc
Sandbox MMO? ehh... not as much as themepark MMOs
You can say 'this is not really a sandbox' all you want but when games with Sandbox elements don't do well while games with theme park element does, what do you think a dev will do?
They are such lazy bums for daring to make money for school for their kids/food/clothes/house! /sarcasm
Minecraft isn't a mmo but it is definitely multi-player. Up to 256 player servers that I've seen so it's surely moving in the right direction. Especially for a game that's nigh a month into Beta! They haven't even finished large parts of the game and people are mad for it.
I find that when I'm playing a game that seems rote and rehashed I always say to myself, "Wait a minute! I'm feeding peoples families by supporting their half-assery so that makes it ok.", yea I do that all the time.
Why are you playing a game that seems 'rote (? did you mean Rot?) and rehashed' to you?
Whether you accept the financial realities or not is up to you, but those who are in the real world know that when the majority of the market says ' We want theme park', there will be more games with theme park elements on the market.
I am very surprised by how my reply to 'Devs are not lazy, they just want to make a game that will sell so they have money' became this far though.
Shoot! i'm sorry, your logic was 'Devs are lazy cause they aren't making the game I want' wasn't it?
Please use a dictionary and then maybe you could better understand my reply. I'm coming from the stand point that more often then not games have become far more similar to each other than say UO was similar to EQ. The logic behind what I'm saying revolves around the fact that the market for the mmorpg genre is saturated with games with a very similar feel to them. When people say WoW clone they're saying it feels VERY similar to WoW. Developers are doing this because they want to go after the largest market share but that shouldn't have anything to do with making a game that I'm going to want to play. Sure it appeals to the majority but excludes the minorities. Eventually even the majority will become bored of playing such similar titles again and again. Developers aren't necessarily lazy but they are damned terrified of innovation cutting them out of potential profit to the point of stagnation of the genre.
Or maybe it's because they have kids to feed? I really don't get this argument. This happens to all games. Have you looked at FPS games? They're all the same, every single one of them. One has blowing up buildings, the other has vehicles. One is futuristic, and another is World War 2-eqsue.
How about RTS games, they're so innovative and cutting edge right? Did the majority get tired of these games? Are they suffering and hurting for innovation? Look at C&C4. They tried to be innovative by taking out the resource collection part. The game has generally been accepted as the worst C&C to date. Innovation doesn't always = better.
You have few choices here. You can make your own game, you can fund the capital game to have said game built, or you can put on one hell of a presentation with supporting numbers to get an investor on board. Don't under estimate the power of the dollar.
Look dude, Mmos didn't all start out the same but they're heading that way. Those of us experienced enough with them to realize this are saying, "Hey, everyone you are forgetting games like UO and even what made some players like EQ much more than WoW.", while the people with no frame of reference are continually bringing up arguments which have little to no bearing on the facts that mmos weren't always the same thing over and over.
Please use a dictionary and then maybe you could better understand my reply. I'm coming from the stand point that more often then not games have become far more similar to each other than say UO was similar to EQ. The logic behind what I'm saying revolves around the fact that the market for the mmorpg genre is saturated with games with a very similar feel to them. When people say WoW clone they're saying it feels VERY similar to WoW. Developers are doing this because they want to go after the largest market share but that shouldn't have anything to do with making a game that I'm going to want to play. Sure it appeals to the majority but excludes the minorities. Eventually even the majority will become bored of playing such similar titles again and again. Developers aren't necessarily lazy but they are damned terrified of innovation cutting them out of potential profit to the point of stagnation of the genre.
If demands are there someone will make it. It is something called 'free-market'/capitalism'
So far, the demand is just not there.
Like I said from the beginning, 'Devs aren't lazy, they just want to make games that sell so they can have money'. I see nothing wrong with this.
I agree with you both.
That being said. Capitalism sucks, and is not condusive to a progressive society. Only supports fear of innovation, and trampling on your neighbors for profit gain.
Let's start a new economy so we can make good games just for the hell of making good games, not to play tug-o-war with subscription numbers. Who's with me!
If you want to ignore the financial realities, you're gonna have to foot your own money to make the game.
If you take someone else's money you're gonna have to pay it back (with interest probably) with a clear plan of how you will succeed.
And somehow I doubt 'it won't have mass-appeal but it will be a good game! or the good for the genre!' is going to cut it.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Sandbox single player games does very well, critically and commercially.
Fallout3/NV, Elder scrolls etc
Sandbox MMO? ehh... not as much as themepark MMOs
You can say 'this is not really a sandbox' all you want but when games with Sandbox elements don't do well while games with theme park element does, what do you think a dev will do?
They are such lazy bums for daring to make money for school for their kids/food/clothes/house! /sarcasm
Minecraft isn't a mmo but it is definitely multi-player. Up to 256 player servers that I've seen so it's surely moving in the right direction. Especially for a game that's nigh a month into Beta! They haven't even finished large parts of the game and people are mad for it.
I find that when I'm playing a game that seems rote and rehashed I always say to myself, "Wait a minute! I'm feeding peoples families by supporting their half-assery so that makes it ok.", yea I do that all the time.
Why are you playing a game that seems 'rote (? did you mean Rot?) and rehashed' to you?
Whether you accept the financial realities or not is up to you, but those who are in the real world know that when the majority of the market says ' We want theme park', there will be more games with theme park elements on the market.
I am very surprised by how my reply to 'Devs are not lazy, they just want to make a game that will sell so they have money' became this far though.
Shoot! i'm sorry, your logic was 'Devs are lazy cause they aren't making the game I want' wasn't it?
Please use a dictionary and then maybe you could better understand my reply. I'm coming from the stand point that more often then not games have become far more similar to each other than say UO was similar to EQ. The logic behind what I'm saying revolves around the fact that the market for the mmorpg genre is saturated with games with a very similar feel to them. When people say WoW clone they're saying it feels VERY similar to WoW. Developers are doing this because they want to go after the largest market share but that shouldn't have anything to do with making a game that I'm going to want to play. Sure it appeals to the majority but excludes the minorities. Eventually even the majority will become bored of playing such similar titles again and again. Developers aren't necessarily lazy but they are damned terrified of innovation cutting them out of potential profit to the point of stagnation of the genre.
Or maybe it's because they have kids to feed? I really don't get this argument. This happens to all games. Have you looked at FPS games? They're all the same, every single one of them. One has blowing up buildings, the other has vehicles. One is futuristic, and another is World War 2-eqsue.
How about RTS games, they're so innovative and cutting edge right? Did the majority get tired of these games? Are they suffering and hurting for innovation? Look at C&C4. They tried to be innovative by taking out the resource collection part. The game has generally been accepted as the worst C&C to date. Innovation doesn't always = better.
You have few choices here. You can make your own game, you can fund the capital game to have said game built, or you can put on one hell of a presentation with supporting numbers to get an investor on board. Don't under estimate the power of the dollar.
Look dude, Mmos didn't all start out the same but they're heading that way. Those of us experienced enough with them to realize this are saying, "Hey, everyone you are forgetting games like UO and even what made some players like EQ much more than WoW.", while the people with no frame of reference are continually bringing up arguments which have little to no bearing on the facts that mmos weren't always the same thing over and over.
Yawn I don't need some history lesson from someone who I've probably been playing MUDs through e-mail longer than you've had internet access. I was there. I played the old school games. That's cool though you can make it seem like your frame of reference is somehow superior even though you cite nothing to back your claims.
Are we going to back to side scrolling games because that's how games started and who didn't absolutely love super mario bros 3?
Please use a dictionary and then maybe you could better understand my reply. I'm coming from the stand point that more often then not games have become far more similar to each other than say UO was similar to EQ. The logic behind what I'm saying revolves around the fact that the market for the mmorpg genre is saturated with games with a very similar feel to them. When people say WoW clone they're saying it feels VERY similar to WoW. Developers are doing this because they want to go after the largest market share but that shouldn't have anything to do with making a game that I'm going to want to play. Sure it appeals to the majority but excludes the minorities. Eventually even the majority will become bored of playing such similar titles again and again. Developers aren't necessarily lazy but they are damned terrified of innovation cutting them out of potential profit to the point of stagnation of the genre.
If demands are there someone will make it. It is something called 'free-market'/capitalism'
So far, the demand is just not there.
Like I said from the beginning, 'Devs aren't lazy, they just want to make games that sell so they can have money'. I see nothing wrong with this.
I agree with you both.
That being said. Capitalism sucks, and is not condusive to a progressive society. Only supports fear of innovation, and trampling on your neighbors for profit gain.
Let's start a new economy so we can make good games just for the hell of making good games, not to play tug-o-war with subscription numbers. Who's with me!
If you want to ignore the financial realities, you're gonna have to foot your own money to make the game.
If you take someone else's money you're gonna have to pay it back (with interest probably) with a clear plan of how you will succeed.
And somehow I doubt 'it won't have mass-appeal but it will be a good game! or the good for the genre!' is going to cut it.
It's pointless. We're being realists here but we can't get around their stubborn ways.
At least I'm not the only person here with some basic economics understanding.
I know! So popular that LoTRO is earning how much for Turbine again?
LoTRO went F2P cause DDO went F2P before and made 300% profit for Turbine.
Yeah, and I'm sure LoTRO profits are smaller than all these 'hugely popular sandbox games'! /sarcasm
I have nothing against sandbox games, but the current market is saying 'we want themepark'.
They haven't made a proper sand box game since Eve and for some of us its just not the sand box for us. Other then that they just do not make sand box games in favor of making continually fail theme parks. I've played both LotRO and DDO just to give them a chance and while not horrible they are pretty much more of the same. DDO's reliance on bombarding me with in game sales was a turn off as well. Played LotRO before it went F2P but expect its very similar to DDO having given Turbine multiple chances.
Basically the current market has never seen a sand box game because the vast majority (90-95% is my guess) haven't played UO or Eve. Ryzom and Darkfall both do not count either. I've played both and they aren't very sand box. Darkfall hardly at all, Ryzom you can argue it but way too much digging.
I'm guessing you've never heard of Minecraft nor about its success as well when you said essentially the market doesn't want sand box games!
I didn't realize Minecraft was an MMO.
Sandbox single player games does very well, critically and commercially.
Fallout3/NV, Elder scrolls etc
Sandbox MMO? ehh... not as much as themepark MMOs
You can say 'this is not really a sandbox' all you want but when games with Sandbox elements don't do well while games with theme park element does, what do you think a dev will do?
They are such lazy bums for daring to make money for school for their kids/food/clothes/house! /sarcasm
Fair to note why those single/multi-player sandbox games fare well compared to their mmo counterparts too.
Modability. Any avid player of Minecraft probably learns pretty quickly that you can play with custom textures for anything and everything in the game. Most probably also know about all the gameplay enhancement mods. Then there's the more obscure mod/hacks to replace models and tweak the core gameplay (though those don't tend to be released).
It's the same case with Elder Scrolls, Fallout, and many other 'sandbox single/multi players'. Even with Spore, and more so it's galactic adventures expansion, it's about making new things and making new gameplay, especially if you get into some of the mods there.
The ability to adapt the gameplay itself to get what you want out of it is a very important thing to these single player sandboxes. You wouldn't see people with lasers and motorcycles running around a modern city in Oblivion (all real mods) if it weren't for that factor.
MMOs have a hard time with that. Mostly because if they let you legally modify gameplay to fit your preferences alongside all the other tweaking being done you'd be potentially sabotaging the fun of everyone else on a server with unbalanced and buggy mechanics.
Like for example, the fact that people call EVE a 'proper' or 'good' sandbox MMO. That depresses me. The fact that one of the best options available has no ability to modify the mechanics, combat, aesthetics, story, skill progression, abilities, or even build a house to call your own depresses me. Sure you can socket different things into a ship hull to tailor it a bit, that's not the same as in Fallout3 making the player have mind control powers (real mod) and being able to call down an army to have large scale conflicts (real mod). Or making a motorcycle(real mod), hovering chair(real mod), submarine (real mod), etc. Sure you can make a big clan and do clannish stuff, earn money, level up, attack other clans, gank people, and farm resources. Minecraft and even Mount&Blade let you do that thanks to several mods.
Pretty much, thanks to the ability to modify these non-mmo games more freely than MMOs, they contain more longevity for the average player more or less because they let you expand the world as you see fit, re-imagine most anything you use in the game into something entirely different, or even play a different game if you want without actually playing a different game(Like Real Time Settler Mod for Fallout 3).
Mods make these things considerably more varied, considerably larger, and considerably more fun. MMOs can't do that yet, because no one's come up with a safe way of doing so.
I whole-heartedly agree with you, Deivos, about mod-ability adding so much to these sand box type games. That being said, I don't quite agree with not doing something because its hard which is probably a primary reason far less sand box games let alone mmorpgs are ever seeing the light of day.
I'm sure Richard Garriott wasn't thinking about how much of a pain in the ass it would be to make one of the first ever online worlds in gaming when he spear headed the development of UO. It takes bold moves to make really great games and I've seen less and less of that during the past decade.
Of course money is always a factor but it shouldn't be the number one deciding factor in your approach to making a game most especially an mmorpg! These games have become the most in depth and advanced games to date in many respects and to cease making them in high regard but rather solely for profit will eventually lead to monotony and greed fueled design as seen in many of the asian markets mmorpgs.
I know! So popular that LoTRO is earning how much for Turbine again?
LoTRO went F2P cause DDO went F2P before and made 300% profit for Turbine.
Yeah, and I'm sure LoTRO profits are smaller than all these 'hugely popular sandbox games'! /sarcasm
I have nothing against sandbox games, but the current market is saying 'we want themepark'.
They haven't made a proper sand box game since Eve and for some of us its just not the sand box for us. Other then that they just do not make sand box games in favor of making continually fail theme parks. I've played both LotRO and DDO just to give them a chance and while not horrible they are pretty much more of the same. DDO's reliance on bombarding me with in game sales was a turn off as well. Played LotRO before it went F2P but expect its very similar to DDO having given Turbine multiple chances.
Basically the current market has never seen a sand box game because the vast majority (90-95% is my guess) haven't played UO or Eve. Ryzom and Darkfall both do not count either. I've played both and they aren't very sand box. Darkfall hardly at all, Ryzom you can argue it but way too much digging.
I'm guessing you've never heard of Minecraft nor about its success as well when you said essentially the market doesn't want sand box games!
I didn't realize Minecraft was an MMO.
Sandbox single player games does very well, critically and commercially.
Fallout3/NV, Elder scrolls etc
Sandbox MMO? ehh... not as much as themepark MMOs
You can say 'this is not really a sandbox' all you want but when games with Sandbox elements don't do well while games with theme park element does, what do you think a dev will do?
They are such lazy bums for daring to make money for school for their kids/food/clothes/house! /sarcasm
Fair to note why those single/multi-player sandbox games fare well compared to their mmo counterparts too.
Modability. Any avid player of Minecraft probably learns pretty quickly that you can play with custom textures for anything and everything in the game. Most probably also know about all the gameplay enhancement mods. Then there's the more obscure mod/hacks to replace models and tweak the core gameplay (though those don't tend to be released).
It's the same case with Elder Scrolls, Fallout, and many other 'sandbox single/multi players'. Even with Spore, and more so it's galactic adventures expansion, it's about making new things and making new gameplay, especially if you get into some of the mods there.
The ability to adapt the gameplay itself to get what you want out of it is a very important thing to these single player sandboxes. You wouldn't see people with lasers and motorcycles running around a modern city in Oblivion (all real mods) if it weren't for that factor.
MMOs have a hard time with that. Mostly because if they let you legally modify gameplay to fit your preferences alongside all the other tweaking being done you'd be potentially sabotaging the fun of everyone else on a server with unbalanced and buggy mechanics.
Like for example, the fact that people call EVE a 'proper' or 'good' sandbox MMO. That depresses me. The fact that one of the best options available has no ability to modify the mechanics, combat, aesthetics, story, skill progression, abilities, or even build a house to call your own depresses me. Sure you can socket different things into a ship hull to tailor it a bit, that's not the same as in Fallout3 making the player have mind control powers (real mod) and being able to call down an army to have large scale conflicts (real mod). Or making a motorcycle(real mod), hovering chair(real mod), submarine (real mod), etc. Sure you can make a big clan and do clannish stuff, earn money, level up, attack other clans, gank people, and farm resources. Minecraft and even Mount&Blade let you do that thanks to several mods.
Pretty much, thanks to the ability to modify these non-mmo games more freely than MMOs, they contain more longevity for the average player more or less because they let you expand the world as you see fit, re-imagine most anything you use in the game into something entirely different, or even play a different game if you want without actually playing a different game(Like Real Time Settler Mod for Fallout 3).
Mods make these things considerably more varied, considerably larger, and considerably more fun. MMOs can't do that yet, because no one's come up with a safe way of doing so.
I whole-heartedly agree with you, Deivos, about mod-ability adding so much to these sand box type games. That being said, I don't quite agree with not doing something because its hard which is probably a primary reason far less sand box games let alone mmorpgs are ever seeing the light of day.
I'm sure Richard Garriott wasn't thinking about how much of a pain in the ass it would be to make one of the first ever online worlds in gaming when he spear headed the development of UO. It takes bold moves to make really great games and I've seen less and less of that during the past decade.
Of course money is always a factor but it shouldn't be the number one deciding factor in your approach to making a game most especially an mmorpg! These games have become the most in depth and advanced games to date in many respects and to cease making them in high regard but rather solely for profit will eventually lead to monotony and greed fueled design as seen in many of the asian markets mmorpgs.
Morally, should money be the factor? No, absolutely not.
But like the smart individual a few posts up stated, can you approach investors and say "No it's not going to be widely popular, meet your RoI, but it's going to be great for the genre and some of the minority players will be thrilled with it!".
It's just not realistic. You need to find an investor, with the capital ot fund such a project, and an absolute love and passion for the style of game (sandbox I'm guessing) that they are more than willing to fund the project with little expectations on a return on their investment.
I know! So popular that LoTRO is earning how much for Turbine again?
LoTRO went F2P cause DDO went F2P before and made 300% profit for Turbine.
Yeah, and I'm sure LoTRO profits are smaller than all these 'hugely popular sandbox games'! /sarcasm
I have nothing against sandbox games, but the current market is saying 'we want themepark'.
They haven't made a proper sand box game since Eve and for some of us its just not the sand box for us. Other then that they just do not make sand box games in favor of making continually fail theme parks. I've played both LotRO and DDO just to give them a chance and while not horrible they are pretty much more of the same. DDO's reliance on bombarding me with in game sales was a turn off as well. Played LotRO before it went F2P but expect its very similar to DDO having given Turbine multiple chances.
Basically the current market has never seen a sand box game because the vast majority (90-95% is my guess) haven't played UO or Eve. Ryzom and Darkfall both do not count either. I've played both and they aren't very sand box. Darkfall hardly at all, Ryzom you can argue it but way too much digging.
I'm guessing you've never heard of Minecraft nor about its success as well when you said essentially the market doesn't want sand box games!
I didn't realize Minecraft was an MMO.
Sandbox single player games does very well, critically and commercially.
Fallout3/NV, Elder scrolls etc
Sandbox MMO? ehh... not as much as themepark MMOs
You can say 'this is not really a sandbox' all you want but when games with Sandbox elements don't do well while games with theme park element does, what do you think a dev will do?
They are such lazy bums for daring to make money for school for their kids/food/clothes/house! /sarcasm
Fair to note why those single/multi-player sandbox games fare well compared to their mmo counterparts too.
Modability. Any avid player of Minecraft probably learns pretty quickly that you can play with custom textures for anything and everything in the game. Most probably also know about all the gameplay enhancement mods. Then there's the more obscure mod/hacks to replace models and tweak the core gameplay (though those don't tend to be released).
It's the same case with Elder Scrolls, Fallout, and many other 'sandbox single/multi players'. Even with Spore, and more so it's galactic adventures expansion, it's about making new things and making new gameplay, especially if you get into some of the mods there.
The ability to adapt the gameplay itself to get what you want out of it is a very important thing to these single player sandboxes. You wouldn't see people with lasers and motorcycles running around a modern city in Oblivion (all real mods) if it weren't for that factor.
MMOs have a hard time with that. Mostly because if they let you legally modify gameplay to fit your preferences alongside all the other tweaking being done you'd be potentially sabotaging the fun of everyone else on a server with unbalanced and buggy mechanics.
Like for example, the fact that people call EVE a 'proper' or 'good' sandbox MMO. That depresses me. The fact that one of the best options available has no ability to modify the mechanics, combat, aesthetics, story, skill progression, abilities, or even build a house to call your own depresses me. Sure you can socket different things into a ship hull to tailor it a bit, that's not the same as in Fallout3 making the player have mind control powers (real mod) and being able to call down an army to have large scale conflicts (real mod). Or making a motorcycle(real mod), hovering chair(real mod), submarine (real mod), etc. Sure you can make a big clan and do clannish stuff, earn money, level up, attack other clans, gank people, and farm resources. Minecraft and even Mount&Blade let you do that thanks to several mods.
Pretty much, thanks to the ability to modify these non-mmo games more freely than MMOs, they contain more longevity for the average player more or less because they let you expand the world as you see fit, re-imagine most anything you use in the game into something entirely different, or even play a different game if you want without actually playing a different game(Like Real Time Settler Mod for Fallout 3).
Mods make these things considerably more varied, considerably larger, and considerably more fun. MMOs can't do that yet, because no one's come up with a safe way of doing so.
I whole-heartedly agree with you, Deivos, about mod-ability adding so much to these sand box type games. That being said, I don't quite agree with not doing something because its hard which is probably a primary reason far less sand box games let alone mmorpgs are ever seeing the light of day.
I'm sure Richard Garriott wasn't thinking about how much of a pain in the ass it would be to make one of the first ever online worlds in gaming when he spear headed the development of UO. It takes bold moves to make really great games and I've seen less and less of that during the past decade.
Of course money is always a factor but it shouldn't be the number one deciding factor in your approach to making a game most especially an mmorpg! These games have become the most in depth and advanced games to date in many respects and to cease making them in high regard but rather solely for profit will eventually lead to monotony and greed fueled design as seen in many of the asian markets mmorpgs.
Morally, should money be the factor? No, absolutely not.
But like the smart individual a few posts up stated, can you approach investors and say "No it's not going to be widely popular, meet your RoI, but it's going to be great for the genre and some of the minority players will be thrilled with it!".
It's just not realistic. You need to find an investor, with the capital ot fund such a project, and an absolute love and passion for the style of game (sandbox I'm guessing) that they are more than willing to fund the project with little expectations on a return on their investment.
You're speaking as if. I.E. as if a well made sand box game will fail and give no return to the investor. You don't know that you're merely putting a spin on what I wrote. Thanks for the bias. It's just not realistic to think that a well made sand box (like Eve) wouldn't garner revenue and support especially if you take into account how many people are looking for just that on these forums alone.
Comments
Darkfall has awful UI, terrible gfx and sound and has an overall "cheap" feel to it. Probably big reasons why not many people play it. I tried it myself but could not get over the clunky combat and terrible sound.
My gaming blog
"that game doesn't even come close to the subs wow has. it sucks."
"Wow has more subs."
"Game *X* is doing pretty well, look how many subs they have.*
"Game *X* isn't doing that well. they only have *Y* subs"
---
Do any of these people who constantly refer to subscription numbers ever stop to think what a 'successful' amount of subs was before 2004? I mean, do these people really think EQ had 5-10million players? If i remember correctly, EQ topped out somewhere around 350,000 active subscriptions.... and that was record breaking for the time.
Nowadays, you hear people talking down about the games that haven't reached WoW subscription standards. As if an MMO that doesn't boast a projected 10million subs is doomed to fail, and be called "dead".
Here's some food for thought:
EQ avg at about 2000 people online per server during normal play hours.
Vanilla WoW had a max of 3000 (and the servers broke or became really sluggish when it got that high) -
BC WoW jumped server cap to about 6000 - WotLK WoW at about 10000 (of which still, avg. heavy server load about 6k players) - and I honestly don't know what the server cap is for Cata, so I won't guess.
EvE topped out at about 65,000 logged on, and daily peaks at 50-51k. 1 server.
Now, the LFG tool and the BG queues from WoW put players together from different realms, max being 40 vs 40.
WoW has millions of players, but the most you'll typically see, and be able to play *WITH/AGAINST* are about 80 people, and that's only in instanced or scripted battleground events. Otherwise, you can sit in a main city all day and count how many different people you'll see, and you won't break a few hundred.
In EVE, I've been in 1 solar system and seen 1000+ players all flying around in ships or docked or fighting or ... w/e. (and there are over 5000 solar systems, each counting as a whole zone/map)
My point is, how many subs doesn't matter. Doesn't even give you an idea of how many people you'll actually be able to interract with in-game. How many servers are the players spread out between? How many regions? How many players does each server support? How many players per screen? This all matters way more than sub numbers to someone who wants to have a massively-multiplayer experience.
Well you are spot on for the most part. However, a lot of people have been saying this same thing for many years. I have been a huge advocate of sandbox style games like UO and SWG where the players dictate the economy and the massive world. Games like WoW are too themepark for me. They don't want you to be too creative on your own, you got to play by their rules and do their quests that lack any innovation or appeal for me.
However, when players regulate the massive worlds it can cause for a great deal of issues, as seen in UO with hacking, exploites, and constant griefing. This is where the devs need to put their focus and be the law enforcement of a basically free world that is controlled by players. Just create a massive world and let the players make their own paths, it's a blast to be a part of that aspect of the game, instead of having everything carved out for you already.
Because almost all MMOs are shooting for the WoW audience by making WoW over and over again. They're styled after a game (WoW) that has no real redeeming qualities beyond being easy, which is already based off the worst features of another game (EQ) and not the redeeming social and player interaction features.
We're seeing next to no new ideas.
I didn't realize Minecraft was an MMO.
Sandbox single player games does very well, critically and commercially.
Fallout3/NV, Elder scrolls etc
Sandbox MMO? ehh... not as much as themepark MMOs
You can say 'this is not really a sandbox' all you want but when games with Sandbox elements don't do well while games with theme park element does, what do you think a dev will do?
They are such lazy bums for daring to make money for school for their kids/food/clothes/house! /sarcasm
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
1. Nothing has really changed since Everquest. Played one pretty much you have played the majority. There are a few exceptions but it isn't enough to keep me entertained for the long term at the moment.
2. Quests are too generic. Sick of go fetch and go kill quests.
3. MMOs lack a real exciting stoy like Mass Effect 2, Starcraft or Dragon Age provides.
4. Boring combat. Kill mob, loot mob and move on to the next. Yawnnnnn!
To be perfectly fair, ME2/Starcraft/DA are all single player which the industry has 40+ years experience in making.
MMO is a new genre so naturally it lags in terms of story telling. I think SWTOR will change that though. Good Story = Bioware IMO.
If you look at the quests/combat, it is the 'immersion/story' that makes it not generic or boring not the 'mechanics'. Lets take Dragon Age;
DA combat (on the console) was terrible. Absolutely god-awful but the story was a classic Bioware which sucked you in till you finished the game. The quests in-between was not that great either, go here and kill darkspawn/orcs/bandits etc.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Minecraft isn't a mmo but it is definitely multi-player. Up to 256 player servers that I've seen so it's surely moving in the right direction. Especially for a game that's nigh a month into Beta! They haven't even finished large parts of the game and people are mad for it.
I find that when I'm playing a game that seems rote and rehashed I always say to myself, "Wait a minute! I'm feeding peoples families by supporting their half-assery so that makes it ok.", yea I do that all the time.
DA on the PC was god awful mechanic wise I really didnt like the stop start of the combat but as you say the stroy sucked me in till the very end and made me buy all DLC.
But the one thing that has me bored is the player interaction communitys are dieing the more we are spoon fed linear crap.
We have to get back to creating our own stories our own reasons for being a MMO should be a alternate life not a game.
I've said in the past I didnt play a char in SWG, I WAS itreh Wirne the crazy Krayt killing pikewoman.
lol this thread is still going with the same boring crap over and over.
"OMg you're only playing with 25-40 people, not 10000000 people". Really? What's this obsession with knowing that there are that many people around you? Are you that lonely that you need to be around thousands of people (99% of which you won't even talk to)?
I would take a tightly knit group of 25 over a mindless 1000 person zerg fest any day of the week. You can call it 'massive' and the other one non-massive, but I prefer to have an impact than ot be another mindless ant.
I saw someone post that the ideal game has everyone in one game server world. Again, because selective perception had you skip over it when I wrote it previously: What happens if the game gets popular and you have 100's of guilds trying to run the same raid at the same time? That game will flop faster than you can say "im a sandbox fanboy".
Sandboxes can be a lot of fun. Eve is my only current subscription (though I'm finding it harder and harder to log on). Sandboxes defnitely have potential if they are done right. What I don't understand is why sandboxers have this misplaced sense of superiority and elitism when compared to themeparkers? They are two different styles, if you don't like the other that's fine, but why post thread after thread explaining why "open world, ffa pvp, affecting the world etc" is better? You're not going to convince anyone, and you only sound like a silly religious fanatic.
I have to agree with thamighty213 here that making my own story and "living" my character was far more enjoyable then being set on linear quest hub rails through soulless content. In fact that just might be what originally attracted me from single player rpgs to mmorpgs and now they're moving away from that more and more.
Why are you playing a game that seems 'rote (? did you mean Rot?) and rehashed' to you?
Whether you accept the financial realities or not is up to you, but those who are in the real world know that when the majority of the market says ' We want theme park', there will be more games with theme park elements on the market.
I am very surprised by how my reply to 'Devs are not lazy, they just want to make a game that will sell so they have money' became this far though.
Shoot! i'm sorry, your logic was 'Devs are lazy cause they aren't making the game I want' wasn't it?
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Spot on. These sandboxers in this thread are just self absorbed, self centered, and absolutely selfish. "Your style of play sucks, mine is better. Make my game or you're lazy and destroying the MMORPG genre. As a matter of fact, you're not even playing an MMORPG anymore, because I decided you're not 'massive'".
You don't have to like WoW's scheme. Not everyone will. However, despite not liking it, you can't ignore that what they do, they do well. If any sandbox (outside of EvE I suppose) took care of their business half as well as wow does you would have plenty of these games that you want to enjoy. I'm looking forward to ArcheAge, but like I said, they have to make sure to take care of their business right.
Please use a dictionary and then maybe you could better understand my reply. I'm coming from the stand point that more often then not games have become far more similar to each other than say UO was similar to EQ. The logic behind what I'm saying revolves around the fact that the market for the mmorpg genre is saturated with games with a very similar feel to them. When people say WoW clone they're saying it feels VERY similar to WoW. Developers are doing this because they want to go after the largest market share but that shouldn't have anything to do with making a game that I'm going to want to play. Sure it appeals to the majority but excludes the minorities. Eventually even the majority will become bored of playing such similar titles again and again. Developers aren't necessarily lazy but they are damned terrified of innovation cutting them out of potential profit to the point of stagnation of the genre.
Fair to note why those single/multi-player sandbox games fare well compared to their mmo counterparts too.
Modability. Any avid player of Minecraft probably learns pretty quickly that you can play with custom textures for anything and everything in the game. Most probably also know about all the gameplay enhancement mods. Then there's the more obscure mod/hacks to replace models and tweak the core gameplay (though those don't tend to be released).
It's the same case with Elder Scrolls, Fallout, and many other 'sandbox single/multi players'. Even with Spore, and more so it's galactic adventures expansion, it's about making new things and making new gameplay, especially if you get into some of the mods there.
The ability to adapt the gameplay itself to get what you want out of it is a very important thing to these single player sandboxes. You wouldn't see people with lasers and motorcycles running around a modern city in Oblivion (all real mods) if it weren't for that factor.
MMOs have a hard time with that. Mostly because if they let you legally modify gameplay to fit your preferences alongside all the other tweaking being done you'd be potentially sabotaging the fun of everyone else on a server with unbalanced and buggy mechanics.
Like for example, the fact that people call EVE a 'proper' or 'good' sandbox MMO. That depresses me. The fact that one of the best options available has no ability to modify the mechanics, combat, aesthetics, story, skill progression, abilities, or even build a house to call your own depresses me. Sure you can socket different things into a ship hull to tailor it a bit, that's not the same as in Fallout3 making the player have mind control powers (real mod) and being able to call down an army to have large scale conflicts (real mod). Or making a motorcycle(real mod), hovering chair(real mod), submarine (real mod), etc. Sure you can make a big clan and do clannish stuff, earn money, level up, attack other clans, gank people, and farm resources. Minecraft and even Mount&Blade let you do that thanks to several mods.
Pretty much, thanks to the ability to modify these non-mmo games more freely than MMOs, they contain more longevity for the average player more or less because they let you expand the world as you see fit, re-imagine most anything you use in the game into something entirely different, or even play a different game if you want without actually playing a different game(Like Real Time Settler Mod for Fallout 3).
Mods make these things considerably more varied, considerably larger, and considerably more fun. MMOs can't do that yet, because no one's come up with a safe way of doing so.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Or maybe it's because they have kids to feed? I really don't get this argument. This happens to all games. Have you looked at FPS games? They're all the same, every single one of them. One has blowing up buildings, the other has vehicles. One is futuristic, and another is World War 2-eqsue.
How about RTS games, they're so innovative and cutting edge right? Did the majority get tired of these games? Are they suffering and hurting for innovation? Look at C&C4. They tried to be innovative by taking out the resource collection part. The game has generally been accepted as the worst C&C to date. Innovation doesn't always = better.
You have few choices here. You can make your own game, you can fund the capital game to have said game built, or you can put on one hell of a presentation with supporting numbers to get an investor on board. Don't under estimate the power of the dollar.
If demands are there someone will make it. It is something called 'free-market'/capitalism'
So far, the demand is just not there.
Like I said from the beginning, 'Devs aren't lazy, they just want to make games that sell so they can have money'. I see nothing wrong with this.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I agree with you both.
That being said. Capitalism sucks, and is not condusive to a progressive society. Only supports fear of innovation, and trampling on your neighbors for profit gain.
Let's start a new economy so we can make good games just for the hell of making good games, not to play tug-o-war with subscription numbers. Who's with me!
Look dude, Mmos didn't all start out the same but they're heading that way. Those of us experienced enough with them to realize this are saying, "Hey, everyone you are forgetting games like UO and even what made some players like EQ much more than WoW.", while the people with no frame of reference are continually bringing up arguments which have little to no bearing on the facts that mmos weren't always the same thing over and over.
If you want to ignore the financial realities, you're gonna have to foot your own money to make the game.
If you take someone else's money you're gonna have to pay it back (with interest probably) with a clear plan of how you will succeed.
And somehow I doubt 'it won't have mass-appeal but it will be a good game! or the good for the genre!' is going to cut it.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Yawn I don't need some history lesson from someone who I've probably been playing MUDs through e-mail longer than you've had internet access. I was there. I played the old school games. That's cool though you can make it seem like your frame of reference is somehow superior even though you cite nothing to back your claims.
Are we going to back to side scrolling games because that's how games started and who didn't absolutely love super mario bros 3?
It's pointless. We're being realists here but we can't get around their stubborn ways.
At least I'm not the only person here with some basic economics understanding.
I whole-heartedly agree with you, Deivos, about mod-ability adding so much to these sand box type games. That being said, I don't quite agree with not doing something because its hard which is probably a primary reason far less sand box games let alone mmorpgs are ever seeing the light of day.
I'm sure Richard Garriott wasn't thinking about how much of a pain in the ass it would be to make one of the first ever online worlds in gaming when he spear headed the development of UO. It takes bold moves to make really great games and I've seen less and less of that during the past decade.
Of course money is always a factor but it shouldn't be the number one deciding factor in your approach to making a game most especially an mmorpg! These games have become the most in depth and advanced games to date in many respects and to cease making them in high regard but rather solely for profit will eventually lead to monotony and greed fueled design as seen in many of the asian markets mmorpgs.
Morally, should money be the factor? No, absolutely not.
But like the smart individual a few posts up stated, can you approach investors and say "No it's not going to be widely popular, meet your RoI, but it's going to be great for the genre and some of the minority players will be thrilled with it!".
It's just not realistic. You need to find an investor, with the capital ot fund such a project, and an absolute love and passion for the style of game (sandbox I'm guessing) that they are more than willing to fund the project with little expectations on a return on their investment.
You're speaking as if. I.E. as if a well made sand box game will fail and give no return to the investor. You don't know that you're merely putting a spin on what I wrote. Thanks for the bias. It's just not realistic to think that a well made sand box (like Eve) wouldn't garner revenue and support especially if you take into account how many people are looking for just that on these forums alone.