Sandboxs have nothing to do with FFA mechanics and risk. Those are entirely separate concepts which are not exclusive.
You may have a sandbox without FFA PvP or risk. Of course, I think risk should be in every game.
Just not EQ1 risk, which isn't actually risk, but archaic gameplay veiled as challenge.
Actually it is somewhat debatable as to whether a true sandbox can impose limits on pvp mechanics (not ofc including risk mechanics to the actual aggressors like in EVE).
There seems to be some confusion between an open world game and a sandbox game. The former can ofc be pve centric and in terms of travelling and exploring does indeed offer more freedom than instanced, themepark games. But a sandbox game is far more than simply an open world, it is an open world where the ruleset is also primarily 'open', with the players themselves deciding what goes and where.
A sandbox game may try and make safer areas by placing npcs or having a rating system, but it does not impose strict rules wich prevent players from pvping, it simply adds a risk element for those that choose to do so.
Can you pve anywhere in a true sandbox? Ofc, but then should you want to and should you decide you can face the risks you can also pvp anywhere as well. This can only be accomplished in a FFA system which by its very nature leads to a higher risk game (in terms of player death, not necessarily death penalities/full looting etc).
At the end of the day a sandbox mmo is one which allows people to build whatever castle they like, in whatever way they like, but it also allows for people knocking down those castles.
The only "true" sandboxes are single player games if you think like that because you can never have total freedom as long as other people are there as well.
But you really don't need total freedom, just a lot more than you get inmost games.
That some sandboxes should have PvE servers as well as PvP servers isn't actually limiting people freedom, it is still your choice and allowing the players to choose which ruleset they prefer is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Say that a game have 3 servertypes: PvP full loot, PvP and PvE only. I don't see how that would affect anyone badly except possibly that some people will find fewer PvE players to grief. You can still play your game at full risk or not, it is your choice and choices are good, that is the point of making a sandbox game in the first place.
As long as sandboxes only have one server type they will always be small niche games. That is one of the 2 actual reasons sandboxes all so small, the other is that mostly small indie companies make them with limited resources and often inexperienced programmers.
If its true that WOW dominates the themepark genre, we still dont have a representant for the sandbox genre.
Im calling them "subgenres", because most people refuse the notion that a true MMORPG is sandbox and sandbox only...
Anyway, the point is...
CURRENTLY THERE IS AN EMPTY SPOT FOR THE SANDBOX GENRE.
The company that releases an AAA polished sandbox, with high production value will come and dominate like WOW did its "themepark" genre.
While I agree it would be nice to see a true sandbox MMO developed with a AAA budget and all that goes with it (excluding the Publishers constantly counting their beans and deciding it needs to be more WoW-like...)... I just don't see it being something that's going to appeal to 50% of the genre.
Once upon a time, back before WoW blew MMOs open into the mainstream and swarms of console players suddenly cared that MMOs even existed, I'd have agreed. It was a smaller population back then, populated much more by people looking for that style of gameplay....
Those of us who prefer the more sandbox style of MMOs are still around. We're just greatly out numbered by the console types I noted above. We've become a minority in a genre we used to dominate and, in some ways, define. MMO's, after all, are as much about the people as they are about the game... or at least that's how it used to be, before developers began to create them more like shared single player games.
I think the only people we're going to see developing that type of MMO are going to be indie developers. Personally, I think that's fine. Being an indie developer, whil having its challenges for sure (budget, etc) also has its benefits.... No publisher breathing over your shoulder telling you how to design the game based on their "market research" (e.g. "WoW is making a lot of money, make it more like that..."). The attention and interest of people who truly are interested in what you're doing because it's what they're looking to experience. They're not just hopping on the bandwagon because your game is the "newest big thing to be part of", before moving on to hop on the next bandwagon...
Personally I could live with that. We won't have the quantity of players. But we'd surely have the quality of the experience.
So, on that note, I'm far more interested in seeing what a team of independent developers can do and am more than happy to get behind and support them in that endeavor. I have no hope in a AAA developer ever adopting anything that is A) In any way "risky" or In any way original or creative.... at least not in the Western market. Unfortunately, in the typical AAA, Western market... "Play It Safe" is the mantra, and sandbox MMOs would not be considered "safe" to most of them.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
The only "true" sandboxes are single player games if you think like that because you can never have total freedom as long as other people are there as well.
But you really don't need total freedom, just a lot more than you get inmost games.
That some sandboxes should have PvE servers as well as PvP servers isn't actually limiting people freedom, it is still your choice and allowing the players to choose which ruleset they prefer is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Say that a game have 3 servertypes: PvP full loot, PvP and PvE only. I don't see how that would affect anyone badly except possibly that some people will find fewer PvE players to grief. You can still play your game at full risk or not, it is your choice and choices are good, that is the point of making a sandbox game in the first place.
As long as sandboxes only have one server type they will always be small niche games. That is one of the 2 actual reasons sandboxes all so small, the other is that mostly small indie companies make them with limited resources and often inexperienced programmers.
Whilst I am not keen to argue about the merits/lack of of single player games (given we are discussing mmo's here) I do find your analogy is incorrect in such a way as to answering it may shed some light on the 'sanfbox mmo' debate.
A single player game does not give a player any more freedom, it merely limits his risk. Not being able to get killed by or having to compete with another player does not increase your 'freedom' (infact it severely limits it) in any way, shape or form.
Now when you play an mmo you do not have the god given right to successfully do anything you choose. A sandbox mmo is all about freedom, that is the freedom to attempt to do what you like, where you like, with or against whom you like (within the realms of plausibility ofc).
Splitting a (sandbox) game across numerous server types does infact have severe ramifications. Ask yourself why EVE has arguably the greatest in game economy seen in an mmo? A vast part of the reason for it's success is because it is not, on the whole, artificially set because RISK, supply and demand are the factors that set prices. Where exactly is this risk factor in a pve ruleset server again?
Tell me, where is the need for player created roles like bodyguards and high risk logistics in a pve rule set server? What real call is there for bounty hunters, mercs and the like?
What is the real point of controlling terriory if you cannot restrict who trades and moves within said territory?
People laud EVE for it's economy and it's complex and in depth political scope, are you trying to tell me that that would not suffer from being split into a two server type game...
A true sandbox is an mmo which is driven primarily by the playerbase, with no artificial contraints placed upon both the world space and the economy. A true sandbox allows for players to attempt to pve/pve where the like, with their success at said endeavours being decided upon by their level of skill and the factor of other players with a counter (or even a similar) agenda.
Given that splitting rulesets would negatively impact upon the economy, the point of territorial control and the creating and usefulness of player created roles I'd say it's pretty clear that doing as such is a very bad thing.
Again people seem to confuse an open world game with a true sandbox, the former may well have multiple server types but the latter, by it's very nature will only have one because it allows for all playstyles to attempt to make their way as they want, when they want.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Since my attempts to make a fortune in EVE by being a spaceship reupholsterer and air freshener salesman all failed spectacularly due to lack of coding support, I find it hard to take 'Sandboxes are about limitless freedom' seriously.
Sandbox games are EXTREMELY limited in what you can and can't do, it's all very clearly laid out by the programmers just what the extents of your activities are going to be.
There's thousands of times more freedom in a sandbox non-game like Second Life.
Sandbox MMOs are more free than some things, but they're hardly limitless, not even close. They're so tightly constrained that I don't understand how people can insist they're not.
Can you make your own fabric patterns? Create your own items using real world physics, like melting sand to make glass, then shaping it to make a telescope which is usable to spot further objects?
No. There's all kinds of things you can't do. There's all sorts of things the engine would plausibly allow, but you just simply can't do because the programmers never put it in. There's all sorts of things that would make perfect sense within the setting, but you can't do because... well, the programmers never put it in.
Given the lack of infinite-sized programming teams, and sandbox games' reluctance to hand the keys to the code to the gamers, they are drastically constrained, crushing your soul into neat little game design sized boxes.
A true sandbox cannot be a game, because a game consists of rules. I'm finding this 'true sandbox' talk pretty baffling, really. The idea that 'this much freedom but no more' is a true sandbox, and other games are disqualified.
Since my attempts to make a fortune in EVE by being a spaceship reupholsterer and air freshener salesman all failed spectacularly due to lack of coding support, I find it hard to take 'Sandboxes are about limitless freedom' seriously.
Sandbox games are EXTREMELY limited in what you can and can't do, it's all very clearly laid out by the programmers just what the extents of your activities are going to be.
There's thousands of times more freedom in a sandbox non-game like Second Life.
Sandbox MMOs are more free than some things, but they're hardly limitless, not even close. They're so tightly constrained that I don't understand how people can insist they're not.
Can you make your own fabric patterns? Create your own items using real world physics, like melting sand to make glass, then shaping it to make a telescope which is usable to spot further objects?
No. There's all kinds of things you can't do. There's all sorts of things the engine would plausibly allow, but you just simply can't do because the programmers never put it in. There's all sorts of things that would make perfect sense within the setting, but you can't do because... well, the programmers never put it in.
Given the lack of infinite-sized programming teams, and sandbox games' reluctance to hand the keys to the code to the gamers, they are drastically constrained, crushing your soul into neat little game design sized boxes.
A true sandbox cannot be a game, because a game consists of rules. I'm finding this 'true sandbox' talk pretty baffling, really. The idea that 'this much freedom but no more' is a true sandbox, and other games are disqualified.
Bit of a strange point. It's clear that there would be coding and countless other limitations and I doubt anyone is arguing for unlimited freedom in all things with the ability to do absolutely everything you could imagine. But I would have thought it patently clear that there are roles created in EVE that have been brought about through it's pvp mechanics.
I also would have thought that is was clear that we are talking in terms of mmo's and what they are capable of in the here and now, not some generalised theory about a higher freedom and reality. With that being the case, not being able to make curtains and having to play within the contraints of coding are not roadblocks to the discussion.
If you break it down to the basics (in terms of mmo's) there are exclusive pvers, there are exclusive pvpers and there are people who like both. And without trying to sound too ridiculous a server which has all of these players is far richer than a set of split up servers.
Arguing unlimited levels of freedom is not really a counter argument to the fact that ffa mechanics offer more freedom to attempt things for a wider spectrum of player types and therefore represent a more 'free and true' sandbox than a game with pve mechanics only.
That being said I would hasten to add I can fully appreciate that many people not only dislike ffa mechanics but also sandboxes in general.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Arguing unlimited levels of freedom is not really a counter argument to the fact that ffa mechanics offer more freedom to attempt things for a wider spectrum of player types and therefore represent a more 'free and true' sandbox than a game with pve mechanics only.
I will accept 'more free' sandbox, but refuse to accept 'true' sandbox. Because that suggests other, less sandboxy games are false sandboxes, and that the 'true' sandbox of which you speak is the pinnacle of sandbox design. Neither of which is true.
Anyway, FFA is merely a single axis of freedom. One could have a FFA PvP game that is soulcrushingly restrictive in all manners of ways. A game with a single class and preselected stat increases, a game where all characters look the exact same and crafting consists of finding an object called 'armor' and clicking 'craft' so it becomes 'wearable armor'. A game so themeparky and relentlessly directed in the quest layout that it makes playing WoW feel like running naked through the forest. A game that is actually one 500 mile long 2 foot wide strip of land you walk forward on to progress to the end game. None of those cancel out 'FFA PvP'.
You could suggest that FFA mechanics are one method of moving more towards the sandbox direction, but it isn't the only way to determine, and by itself, it is hardly sufficient to make something a sandbox.
Whilst I am not keen to argue about the merits/lack of of single player games (given we are discussing mmo's here) I do find your analogy is incorrect in such a way as to answering it may shed some light on the 'sanfbox mmo' debate.
A single player game does not give a player any more freedom, it merely limits his risk. Not being able to get killed by or having to compete with another player does not increase your 'freedom' (infact it severely limits it) in any way, shape or form.
Now when you play an mmo you do not have the god given right to successfully do anything you choose. A sandbox mmo is all about freedom, that is the freedom to attempt to do what you like, where you like, with or against whom you like (within the realms of plausibility ofc).
Splitting a (sandbox) game across numerous server types does infact have severe ramifications. Ask yourself why EVE has arguably the greatest in game economy seen in an mmo? A vast part of the reason for it's success is because it is not, on the whole, artificially set because RISK, supply and demand are the factors that set prices. Where exactly is this risk factor in a pve ruleset server again?
Tell me, where is the need for player created roles like bodyguards and high risk logistics in a pve rule set server? What real call is there for bounty hunters, mercs and the like?
What is the real point of controlling terriory if you cannot restrict who trades and moves within said territory?
People laud EVE for it's economy and it's complex and in depth political scope, are you trying to tell me that that would not suffer from being split into a two server type game...
A true sandbox is an mmo which is driven primarily by the playerbase, with no artificial contraints placed upon both the world space and the economy. A true sandbox allows for players to attempt to pve/pve where the like, with their success at said endeavours being decided upon by their level of skill and the factor of other players with a counter (or even a similar) agenda
Given that splitting rulesets would negatively impact upon the economy, the point of territorial control and the creating and usefulness of player created roles I'd say it's pretty clear that doing as such is a very bad thing.
Again people seem to confuse an open world game with a true sandbox, the former may well have multiple server types but the latter, by it's very nature will only have one because it allows for all playstyles to attempt to make their way as they want, when they want.
In a single player game the devs only have to take one person into account, of course you can get that more free than a game with thousands of players.
As for what fun it is to play without risks (and by that you means risks from other players) that is not up to either you or me but to everyone when they choose their server.
There are other ways to have territorial control than full PvP if territorial control are the games main feature, GW:Factions have territorial control as well.
By having different types of servers you actually allow the game to attract different types of players and that is the only chance a sandbox game have to compete against a themepark game which is the point of the thread.
If you only want FFA PvP it isn't a problem at all, just play at such server. But a game like Darkfall would never have a million subs no matter how awesome graphics, great coding and loads of content you adds to it.
I have nothing against FFA PvP, it can be rather amusing but the point of this thread is if sandboxes could be as large as themeparks. They could actually with a good well made game with different server options, but with FFA PvP it will never pass UOs top at 250K players. Faction PvP like Eve can get some more but it can't either compete with the larger themepark games.
And no, I don't really think Eve would loose players if it had a PvE only server. It wouldn't gain that many either unless it added some more stuff to do on the PvE server but it wouldn't loose any.
Sandboxes. They sound great on paper. They always do. But when they fail, we blame "lack of polish" or "poor implementation" of the mechanics, rather than the mechanics themselves.
If its true that WOW dominates the themepark genre, we still dont have a representant for the sandbox genre.
Im calling them "subgenres", because most people refuse the notion that a true MMORPG is sandbox and sandbox only...
Anyway, the point is...
CURRENTLY THERE IS AN EMPTY SPOT FOR THE SANDBOX GENRE.
The company that releases an AAA polished sandbox, with high production value will come and dominate like WOW did its "themepark" genre.
Well... The problem with that is, that in the western markets, there isn't enough player demographics to justify the expense required to properly produce such a AAA title. "Sand box" usually (at its most fundamental) translates to some type of gankfest. Now while that may warm the heart of gankers and griefers, outside of a small niche, its not that appealing in the modern western market. Since a AAA title takes millions and millions of other peoples money to properly create, its just not worth the ROI for those with the money. I don't see that changing any time soon. At least not until the cost of producing such a title comes way down.
If you break it down to the basics (in terms of mmo's) there are exclusive pvers, there are exclusive pvpers and there are people who like both. And without trying to sound too ridiculous a server which has all of these players is far richer than a set of split up servers.
That is true but at least my experience is that it doesn't really work like this. The exclusive PvE:ers are far gone soon in most FFA games, and they have hard enough to keep the people who do both.
It only worked for UO because the only other MMO at the time was Meridian 59, and most people hadn't heard about it.
Now a PvE:er who gets ganked 50 times a day or more and loose all his gear everytime will be gone in a matter of days. Very feo of those stay around for long. If you give them their own server they stay and you get a lot more subs, which generates more money so you can spend more making a better game.
FFA sandboxes can be pretty fun but they will never become large.
If its true that WOW dominates the themepark genre, we still dont have a representant for the sandbox genre.
Im calling them "subgenres", because most people refuse the notion that a true MMORPG is sandbox and sandbox only...
Anyway, the point is...
CURRENTLY THERE IS AN EMPTY SPOT FOR THE SANDBOX GENRE.
The company that releases an AAA polished sandbox, with high production value will come and dominate like WOW did its "themepark" genre.
Even if I'm a fan of sandboxes I disagree, sanboxes are a niche market. However a good mix of sandbox with theme parks is another story.
This is where the genre is headed, in my opinion. While I'm not saying there won't be ANY pure sandbox releases (just have to look at CCP's upcoming MMO), making a themepark-sandbox hybrid makes more financial and logical sense. Make it familiar to your average MMO player ("WoW kiddie"), but introduce some sandbox elements like complex character development, more robust economy and detailed crafting professions, motivation and reward for exploration, and social tools. Keep things like levels, quests, gear progression (though don't make it too harsh), and possibly combat, but you always have to put your own twist/spin on it.
In a single player game the devs only have to take one person into account, of course you can get that more free than a game with thousands of players.
As for what fun it is to play without risks (and by that you means risks from other players) that is not up to either you or me but to everyone when they choose their server.
There are other ways to have territorial control than full PvP if territorial control are the games main feature, GW:Factions have territorial control as well.
Yes there are other ways, but are you telling my they make the said territory control as significant? Currently they certainly are not.
By having different types of servers you actually allow the game to attract different types of players and that is the only chance a sandbox game have to compete against a themepark game which is the point of the thread.
If you only want FFA PvP it isn't a problem at all, just play at such server. But a game like Darkfall would never have a million subs no matter how awesome graphics, great coding and loads of content you adds to it.
I have nothing against FFA PvP, it can be rather amusing but the point of this thread is if sandboxes could be as large as themeparks. They could actually with a good well made game with different server options, but with FFA PvP it will never pass UOs top at 250K players. Faction PvP like Eve can get some more but it can't either compete with the larger themepark games.
And no, I don't really think Eve would loose players if it had a PvE only server. It wouldn't gain that many either unless it added some more stuff to do on the PvE server but it wouldn't loose any.
EVE may not lose players due to a split of servers, but the game itself would suffer from said switch (as I have outlined in the original post). Some may feel having x more subs is more important than the rich economy and territorial control structure of EVE with it's countless pvp driven player roles and corps, I would not take that line of thought.
And yes, a pve server would greatly effect that in a bad way.
By the way I have never stated that any sandbox would take a large section of market share, I disagree with the OP's sugestion.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Arguing unlimited levels of freedom is not really a counter argument to the fact that ffa mechanics offer more freedom to attempt things for a wider spectrum of player types and therefore represent a more 'free and true' sandbox than a game with pve mechanics only.
I will accept 'more free' sandbox, but refuse to accept 'true' sandbox. Because that suggests other, less sandboxy games are false sandboxes, and that the 'true' sandbox of which you speak is the pinnacle of sandbox design. Neither of which is true.
Anyway, FFA is merely a single axis of freedom. One could have a FFA PvP game that is soulcrushingly restrictive in all manners of ways. A game with a single class and preselected stat increases, a game where all characters look the exact same and crafting consists of finding an object called 'armor' and clicking 'craft' so it becomes 'wearable armor'. A game so themeparky and relentlessly directed in the quest layout that it makes playing WoW feel like running naked through the forest. A game that is actually one 500 mile long 2 foot wide strip of land you walk forward on to progress to the end game. None of those cancel out 'FFA PvP'.
You could suggest that FFA mechanics are one method of moving more towards the sandbox direction, but it isn't the only way to determine, and by itself, it is hardly sufficient to make something a sandbox.
It really depends where you place a cut off point in your own mind as to when an mmo is a sandbox or not (taking into account current mmo mechanics and the like). For me a game without ffa, open world pvp is simply not a sandbox, but whilst I am happy to argue the toss on that point I am well aware that is purely my take on the matter and that others don't agree.
Ofc nothing is black and white, and there are sandboxy games, but I feel that pvp is such a core element as to make the case for/against it somewhat more clear cut than a more 'shades of grey' component.
I will also say that I agree with you, ffa pvp on it's own certainly does not make a sandbox, it is simply (an integral) part of one.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The reason I didnt mentioned EVE, Fallen Earth, Darkfall, etc is because they dont fit my description of "polished AAA sandbox".
Those are nowhere near good enough, or close enough to what I originally talked about.
Its taken a while but eve is pretty polished. It just doesn't satisfy the viceral desire of running through wild environments and swinging 3 feet of steel into someone.
It also does not satisfy the desires of the 'pure builder' sandboxers who do not consider FFA PvP to be much of a feature. So it is getting squeezed from both sides of the spectrum.
What do you mean by pure builder? EvE has quite a bit more to it than ffa pvp. The crafting system is deep and intricately tied to the economy. EvE is one of the most feature rich mmo's out there. I'll just grant its not new-user-friendly in that it doesn't hold your hand at the beginning.
I mean a player who likes to build things and expand on them. This kind of player really does not care about other players coming in and destroying things they have built up. They value cooperation and constructive competition over destructive competition.
When I first played EVE years ago, my dream was to go out into an unexplored region of space, build a small base there, mine rare minerals and then use it to build and industrial power base. The lack of player owned structures back then made that impossible and it also quickly became apparent that such an enterprise would simply become fodder for the pirates and the agressive 0.0 corporations.
It can be done. In fact the Northern Coalition pretty much has done that for some quite big areas of the map.
Looks like you just didn't try hard enough for long enough.
I agree it would pull a lot of players from games like Minecraft and SecondLife and maybe even EvE. Perhaps even those folks on Facebook who play the sandboxy type games like Farmville.
I agree with the OP. I think people underestimate sandbox mmo's because there isnt one perfect enough for them on the market. Time will tell, when one day a sandbox mmo comes out to take its place alongside WOW as the top mmo's.
And just to state a few advances on the genre: Eve is coming out with Incarna this year, and ArcheAge wil release at the end of the year.. Two brilliant addons to the MMO games.
I agree it would pull a lot of players from games like Minecraft and SecondLife and maybe even EvE. Perhaps even those folks on Facebook who play the sandboxy type games like Farmville.
I agree OP, it could happen.
What makes Farmville a sandbox?
I mean, unless you mean the ways it's vaguely like the Sims games.
Oh! That's a great idea! EA should come out with a Sims Online, it would be guaranteed to pull in tons of fans, it would definitely sell at least half as much as WoW.
I agree it would pull a lot of players from games like Minecraft and SecondLife and maybe even EvE. Perhaps even those folks on Facebook who play the sandboxy type games like Farmville.
I agree OP, it could happen.
What makes Farmville a sandbox?
I mean, unless you mean the ways it's vaguely like the Sims games.
Oh! That's a great idea! EA should come out with a Sims Online, it would be guaranteed to pull in tons of fans, it would definitely sell at least half as much as WoW.
Sims failed cus it didnt 'have anything to do...
Also OP said Polished, and if you played it you'd know it was not.
I see this alot on here and other forums, people look at games past and say wow if only this game had this or this game was like this or if only DAoC or AC had a graphics overhaul or something then I would play that today. Look those games are still around and have decent pops. Go play them.
Actually that's a really good point I've often thought about. Here there is, all this p******g and moaning about great games of the past - but some of them are still there, and still have population. Why not play them?
What this reveals to me is that people are much more graphics w****s than they'll admit.
Really, what people here want is a game that has the older styles of gameplay they like, but with modern flashy graphics.
The problem is that modern flashy graphics are what are draining so much time and input in modern games. In the old days and artist could design an orc, and the in-game model would be fairly simple. Nowadays, that orc has to be detailed, and modelled, to the n-th degree. This means that of the total resources going into a game, graphics are draining a huge amount. And proportionately, the amount of resources devoted to actual gameplay is lessened. (Of course developers try their best to be sensible about it all, but it is a factor.)
So really, we are all our own worst enemies in this. If we stopped wanting and buying games with tending-towards-photorealistic graphics, more resources would go towards perfecting gameplay.
Nevertheless, the drive towards photorealism has to continue and has to get to the stage where graphics are (or can be, at need) photorealistic enough for jazz. And they are getting there, i.e. getting to the stage where graphics are more or less "done" and generic (incidentally, the audio world is nearly at this stage atm, ).
At that point, I reckon, we will see two things: developers devoting proportionately more resources to gameplay, and the development of things like (e.g.) Hero Engine Lite, so small teams of developers can licence working MMO game engines, and create more niche MMOs that satisfy various hardcore contingents.
And that's only the beginning. I think this market still has huge potential that's only just beginning to be realised. Living part time in virtual worlds, working in them, playing in them, is going to be bigger and bigger in the future, and the interface between that and the real world is going to be more and more transparent as time goes on (e.g. we will be able to have "overlays" on the real world, call up information about real world objects by the equivalent of a right-click context menu in our ordinary experience).
Human beings are so voracious for experience, one reality just isn't enough
Thing is, making a claim like that is unfounded. When we don't have any high quality, polished sandbox games to look at, it's impossible to say what market share it may or may not command. I tend to believe the OP has it right. Sandbox games are currently just a large niche, but that's more likely due to the fact that you have to be willing to play low-budget unpolished games in order to be a sandbox gamer.
A sandbox game is NOT a themepark game with no content or progression. It's an entirely different beast. Player-driven content versus developer-coded content. What you want or desire to do versus what the game allows you to do. A truly well-made sandbox game could exist 10 years and would not need constant development and expansions like the themepark MMOs on the market, and thus I believe it 's a working business model that just hasn't had a large publisher willing to take the risk yet.
Consider the WoW generation of MMO players. The MMO genre as a whole has experienced a massive explosion of growth since WoW, and yet the quantity of player going into sandbox games is no greater than those who tried out Shadowbane and SWG. Many of the newer MMO players probably don't even realize a game exists that doesn't hold you hand the entire way through. Consider the power to pull in players a well-marketed, polished sandbox MMO could have
I see this alot on here and other forums, people look at games past and say wow if only this game had this or this game was like this or if only DAoC or AC had a graphics overhaul or something then I would play that today. Look those games are still around and have decent pops. Go play them.
Actually that's a really good point I've often thought about. Here there is, all this p******g and moaning about great games of the past - but some of them are still there, and still have population. Why not play them?
What this reveals to me is that people are much more graphics w****s than they'll admit.
Really, what people here want is a game that has the older styles of gameplay they like, but with modern flashy graphics.
It's not just the graphics (but that is a big part), but also something fresh with that new game smell.
Something you haven't already done a bazillion times.
I don't even like to play betas if the game is good. I don't want to go through the content, and then do it again when it releases. I want it to be new and fresh.
So add to the modern flashy graphics, new terrain to explore, new lore, new quests to read, new mobs you havent' seen before, new items and gear, new spells with new animations...but keep the basic game mechanics.
A sandbox game is NOT a themepark game with no content or progression. It's an entirely different beast. Player-driven content versus developer-coded content. What you want or desire to do versus what the game allows you to do.
How is that different than say WoW with no quests? Or can you list at least one character based MMO that has enjoyed some success with this model?
Comments
The only "true" sandboxes are single player games if you think like that because you can never have total freedom as long as other people are there as well.
But you really don't need total freedom, just a lot more than you get inmost games.
That some sandboxes should have PvE servers as well as PvP servers isn't actually limiting people freedom, it is still your choice and allowing the players to choose which ruleset they prefer is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Say that a game have 3 servertypes: PvP full loot, PvP and PvE only. I don't see how that would affect anyone badly except possibly that some people will find fewer PvE players to grief. You can still play your game at full risk or not, it is your choice and choices are good, that is the point of making a sandbox game in the first place.
As long as sandboxes only have one server type they will always be small niche games. That is one of the 2 actual reasons sandboxes all so small, the other is that mostly small indie companies make them with limited resources and often inexperienced programmers.
While I agree it would be nice to see a true sandbox MMO developed with a AAA budget and all that goes with it (excluding the Publishers constantly counting their beans and deciding it needs to be more WoW-like...)... I just don't see it being something that's going to appeal to 50% of the genre.
Once upon a time, back before WoW blew MMOs open into the mainstream and swarms of console players suddenly cared that MMOs even existed, I'd have agreed. It was a smaller population back then, populated much more by people looking for that style of gameplay....
Those of us who prefer the more sandbox style of MMOs are still around. We're just greatly out numbered by the console types I noted above. We've become a minority in a genre we used to dominate and, in some ways, define. MMO's, after all, are as much about the people as they are about the game... or at least that's how it used to be, before developers began to create them more like shared single player games.
I think the only people we're going to see developing that type of MMO are going to be indie developers. Personally, I think that's fine. Being an indie developer, whil having its challenges for sure (budget, etc) also has its benefits.... No publisher breathing over your shoulder telling you how to design the game based on their "market research" (e.g. "WoW is making a lot of money, make it more like that..."). The attention and interest of people who truly are interested in what you're doing because it's what they're looking to experience. They're not just hopping on the bandwagon because your game is the "newest big thing to be part of", before moving on to hop on the next bandwagon...
Personally I could live with that. We won't have the quantity of players. But we'd surely have the quality of the experience.
So, on that note, I'm far more interested in seeing what a team of independent developers can do and am more than happy to get behind and support them in that endeavor. I have no hope in a AAA developer ever adopting anything that is A) In any way "risky" or
In any way original or creative.... at least not in the Western market. Unfortunately, in the typical AAA, Western market... "Play It Safe" is the mantra, and sandbox MMOs would not be considered "safe" to most of them.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Whilst I am not keen to argue about the merits/lack of of single player games (given we are discussing mmo's here) I do find your analogy is incorrect in such a way as to answering it may shed some light on the 'sanfbox mmo' debate.
A single player game does not give a player any more freedom, it merely limits his risk. Not being able to get killed by or having to compete with another player does not increase your 'freedom' (infact it severely limits it) in any way, shape or form.
Now when you play an mmo you do not have the god given right to successfully do anything you choose. A sandbox mmo is all about freedom, that is the freedom to attempt to do what you like, where you like, with or against whom you like (within the realms of plausibility ofc).
Splitting a (sandbox) game across numerous server types does infact have severe ramifications. Ask yourself why EVE has arguably the greatest in game economy seen in an mmo? A vast part of the reason for it's success is because it is not, on the whole, artificially set because RISK, supply and demand are the factors that set prices. Where exactly is this risk factor in a pve ruleset server again?
Tell me, where is the need for player created roles like bodyguards and high risk logistics in a pve rule set server? What real call is there for bounty hunters, mercs and the like?
What is the real point of controlling terriory if you cannot restrict who trades and moves within said territory?
People laud EVE for it's economy and it's complex and in depth political scope, are you trying to tell me that that would not suffer from being split into a two server type game...
A true sandbox is an mmo which is driven primarily by the playerbase, with no artificial contraints placed upon both the world space and the economy. A true sandbox allows for players to attempt to pve/pve where the like, with their success at said endeavours being decided upon by their level of skill and the factor of other players with a counter (or even a similar) agenda.
Given that splitting rulesets would negatively impact upon the economy, the point of territorial control and the creating and usefulness of player created roles I'd say it's pretty clear that doing as such is a very bad thing.
Again people seem to confuse an open world game with a true sandbox, the former may well have multiple server types but the latter, by it's very nature will only have one because it allows for all playstyles to attempt to make their way as they want, when they want.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Since my attempts to make a fortune in EVE by being a spaceship reupholsterer and air freshener salesman all failed spectacularly due to lack of coding support, I find it hard to take 'Sandboxes are about limitless freedom' seriously.
Sandbox games are EXTREMELY limited in what you can and can't do, it's all very clearly laid out by the programmers just what the extents of your activities are going to be.
There's thousands of times more freedom in a sandbox non-game like Second Life.
Sandbox MMOs are more free than some things, but they're hardly limitless, not even close. They're so tightly constrained that I don't understand how people can insist they're not.
Can you make your own fabric patterns? Create your own items using real world physics, like melting sand to make glass, then shaping it to make a telescope which is usable to spot further objects?
No. There's all kinds of things you can't do. There's all sorts of things the engine would plausibly allow, but you just simply can't do because the programmers never put it in. There's all sorts of things that would make perfect sense within the setting, but you can't do because... well, the programmers never put it in.
Given the lack of infinite-sized programming teams, and sandbox games' reluctance to hand the keys to the code to the gamers, they are drastically constrained, crushing your soul into neat little game design sized boxes.
A true sandbox cannot be a game, because a game consists of rules. I'm finding this 'true sandbox' talk pretty baffling, really. The idea that 'this much freedom but no more' is a true sandbox, and other games are disqualified.
Bit of a strange point. It's clear that there would be coding and countless other limitations and I doubt anyone is arguing for unlimited freedom in all things with the ability to do absolutely everything you could imagine. But I would have thought it patently clear that there are roles created in EVE that have been brought about through it's pvp mechanics.
I also would have thought that is was clear that we are talking in terms of mmo's and what they are capable of in the here and now, not some generalised theory about a higher freedom and reality. With that being the case, not being able to make curtains and having to play within the contraints of coding are not roadblocks to the discussion.
If you break it down to the basics (in terms of mmo's) there are exclusive pvers, there are exclusive pvpers and there are people who like both. And without trying to sound too ridiculous a server which has all of these players is far richer than a set of split up servers.
Arguing unlimited levels of freedom is not really a counter argument to the fact that ffa mechanics offer more freedom to attempt things for a wider spectrum of player types and therefore represent a more 'free and true' sandbox than a game with pve mechanics only.
That being said I would hasten to add I can fully appreciate that many people not only dislike ffa mechanics but also sandboxes in general.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
In a single player game the devs only have to take one person into account, of course you can get that more free than a game with thousands of players.
As for what fun it is to play without risks (and by that you means risks from other players) that is not up to either you or me but to everyone when they choose their server.
There are other ways to have territorial control than full PvP if territorial control are the games main feature, GW:Factions have territorial control as well.
By having different types of servers you actually allow the game to attract different types of players and that is the only chance a sandbox game have to compete against a themepark game which is the point of the thread.
If you only want FFA PvP it isn't a problem at all, just play at such server. But a game like Darkfall would never have a million subs no matter how awesome graphics, great coding and loads of content you adds to it.
I have nothing against FFA PvP, it can be rather amusing but the point of this thread is if sandboxes could be as large as themeparks. They could actually with a good well made game with different server options, but with FFA PvP it will never pass UOs top at 250K players. Faction PvP like Eve can get some more but it can't either compete with the larger themepark games.
And no, I don't really think Eve would loose players if it had a PvE only server. It wouldn't gain that many either unless it added some more stuff to do on the PvE server but it wouldn't loose any.
Sandboxes. They sound great on paper. They always do. But when they fail, we blame "lack of polish" or "poor implementation" of the mechanics, rather than the mechanics themselves.
How long will we fool ourselves?
Well... The problem with that is, that in the western markets, there isn't enough player demographics to justify the expense required to properly produce such a AAA title. "Sand box" usually (at its most fundamental) translates to some type of gankfest. Now while that may warm the heart of gankers and griefers, outside of a small niche, its not that appealing in the modern western market. Since a AAA title takes millions and millions of other peoples money to properly create, its just not worth the ROI for those with the money. I don't see that changing any time soon. At least not until the cost of producing such a title comes way down.
Even if I'm a fan of sandboxes I disagree, sanboxes are a niche market. However a good mix of sandbox with theme parks is another story.
That is true but at least my experience is that it doesn't really work like this. The exclusive PvE:ers are far gone soon in most FFA games, and they have hard enough to keep the people who do both.
It only worked for UO because the only other MMO at the time was Meridian 59, and most people hadn't heard about it.
Now a PvE:er who gets ganked 50 times a day or more and loose all his gear everytime will be gone in a matter of days. Very feo of those stay around for long. If you give them their own server they stay and you get a lot more subs, which generates more money so you can spend more making a better game.
FFA sandboxes can be pretty fun but they will never become large.
This is where the genre is headed, in my opinion. While I'm not saying there won't be ANY pure sandbox releases (just have to look at CCP's upcoming MMO), making a themepark-sandbox hybrid makes more financial and logical sense. Make it familiar to your average MMO player ("WoW kiddie"), but introduce some sandbox elements like complex character development, more robust economy and detailed crafting professions, motivation and reward for exploration, and social tools. Keep things like levels, quests, gear progression (though don't make it too harsh), and possibly combat, but you always have to put your own twist/spin on it.
EVE may not lose players due to a split of servers, but the game itself would suffer from said switch (as I have outlined in the original post). Some may feel having x more subs is more important than the rich economy and territorial control structure of EVE with it's countless pvp driven player roles and corps, I would not take that line of thought.
And yes, a pve server would greatly effect that in a bad way.
By the way I have never stated that any sandbox would take a large section of market share, I disagree with the OP's sugestion.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
It really depends where you place a cut off point in your own mind as to when an mmo is a sandbox or not (taking into account current mmo mechanics and the like). For me a game without ffa, open world pvp is simply not a sandbox, but whilst I am happy to argue the toss on that point I am well aware that is purely my take on the matter and that others don't agree.
Ofc nothing is black and white, and there are sandboxy games, but I feel that pvp is such a core element as to make the case for/against it somewhat more clear cut than a more 'shades of grey' component.
I will also say that I agree with you, ffa pvp on it's own certainly does not make a sandbox, it is simply (an integral) part of one.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
It can be done. In fact the Northern Coalition pretty much has done that for some quite big areas of the map.
Looks like you just didn't try hard enough for long enough.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
I agree it would pull a lot of players from games like Minecraft and SecondLife and maybe even EvE. Perhaps even those folks on Facebook who play the sandboxy type games like Farmville.
I agree OP, it could happen.
I agree with the OP. I think people underestimate sandbox mmo's because there isnt one perfect enough for them on the market. Time will tell, when one day a sandbox mmo comes out to take its place alongside WOW as the top mmo's.
And just to state a few advances on the genre: Eve is coming out with Incarna this year, and ArcheAge wil release at the end of the year.. Two brilliant addons to the MMO games.
Future: WoD, SWTOR, Arche Age, Tera (maybe), GW2.
Present: None.
Past: Eve, RIFT, UO, bunch of F2P crap.
What makes Farmville a sandbox?
I mean, unless you mean the ways it's vaguely like the Sims games.
Oh! That's a great idea! EA should come out with a Sims Online, it would be guaranteed to pull in tons of fans, it would definitely sell at least half as much as WoW.
Sims failed cus it didnt 'have anything to do...
Also OP said Polished, and if you played it you'd know it was not.
Which I did
Regretably.
Actually that's a really good point I've often thought about. Here there is, all this p******g and moaning about great games of the past - but some of them are still there, and still have population. Why not play them?
What this reveals to me is that people are much more graphics w****s than they'll admit.
Really, what people here want is a game that has the older styles of gameplay they like, but with modern flashy graphics.
The problem is that modern flashy graphics are what are draining so much time and input in modern games. In the old days and artist could design an orc, and the in-game model would be fairly simple. Nowadays, that orc has to be detailed, and modelled, to the n-th degree. This means that of the total resources going into a game, graphics are draining a huge amount. And proportionately, the amount of resources devoted to actual gameplay is lessened. (Of course developers try their best to be sensible about it all, but it is a factor.)
So really, we are all our own worst enemies in this. If we stopped wanting and buying games with tending-towards-photorealistic graphics, more resources would go towards perfecting gameplay.
Nevertheless, the drive towards photorealism has to continue and has to get to the stage where graphics are (or can be, at need) photorealistic enough for jazz. And they are getting there, i.e. getting to the stage where graphics are more or less "done" and generic (incidentally, the audio world is nearly at this stage atm, ).
At that point, I reckon, we will see two things: developers devoting proportionately more resources to gameplay, and the development of things like (e.g.) Hero Engine Lite, so small teams of developers can licence working MMO game engines, and create more niche MMOs that satisfy various hardcore contingents.
And that's only the beginning. I think this market still has huge potential that's only just beginning to be realised. Living part time in virtual worlds, working in them, playing in them, is going to be bigger and bigger in the future, and the interface between that and the real world is going to be more and more transparent as time goes on (e.g. we will be able to have "overlays" on the real world, call up information about real world objects by the equivalent of a right-click context menu in our ordinary experience).
Human beings are so voracious for experience, one reality just isn't enough
The sandbox market is a niche market... never going to hold 50% of the market.
This is especially true as long as sandbox just means a theme park with no quests or heavy npc interaction and usually skill based progression.
Thing is, making a claim like that is unfounded. When we don't have any high quality, polished sandbox games to look at, it's impossible to say what market share it may or may not command. I tend to believe the OP has it right. Sandbox games are currently just a large niche, but that's more likely due to the fact that you have to be willing to play low-budget unpolished games in order to be a sandbox gamer.
A sandbox game is NOT a themepark game with no content or progression. It's an entirely different beast. Player-driven content versus developer-coded content. What you want or desire to do versus what the game allows you to do. A truly well-made sandbox game could exist 10 years and would not need constant development and expansions like the themepark MMOs on the market, and thus I believe it 's a working business model that just hasn't had a large publisher willing to take the risk yet.
Consider the WoW generation of MMO players. The MMO genre as a whole has experienced a massive explosion of growth since WoW, and yet the quantity of player going into sandbox games is no greater than those who tried out Shadowbane and SWG. Many of the newer MMO players probably don't even realize a game exists that doesn't hold you hand the entire way through. Consider the power to pull in players a well-marketed, polished sandbox MMO could have
If you were me, you'd be arrogant too.
It's not just the graphics (but that is a big part), but also something fresh with that new game smell.
Something you haven't already done a bazillion times.
I don't even like to play betas if the game is good. I don't want to go through the content, and then do it again when it releases. I want it to be new and fresh.
So add to the modern flashy graphics, new terrain to explore, new lore, new quests to read, new mobs you havent' seen before, new items and gear, new spells with new animations...but keep the basic game mechanics.
How is that different than say WoW with no quests? Or can you list at least one character based MMO that has enjoyed some success with this model?