I wish to iterate that this thread was never intended to bash sandbox/themepark/sandboxy themeparky glow-in-the-dark merry-go-round etc
It was an interesting thought I had due to a real life work I did and see if it could be applied in an MMO gamestyle setting.
I do like the overseas trip analogy. As someone who has taken a planned group trip to Europe and a 'have backpack, will travel' to Asia as well, I can see the similarities.
I am finding myself less on the 'backpack' and more on the 'nice hotel room at night' nowadays. >_>
I think it comes down to 'security' (less risk). We want security in our homes, neighborhoods, jobs, financial etc and it isn't surprising to see it being applied to our entertainment as well.
Hmm, maybe that's why movie sequels are so popular in Hollywood? But I guess that's a derail. :P
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Many don't even understand the technical difference, let alone the history & progeny of how the MMO space came to exist.
"People" offer up ideas & suggestions with little knowledge of what they are talking about. "Poeple" typically have no clue about server farms, computer & the mechanics behind gameworlds. Yet, they have all kinds of erroneous opinions about sandbow & themepark. Which only indicates they, themselves have very little clue of the distiction between said topic.
Most "people" ( I keep using that in quotes, because I am sure JPZ is talking about kids/children/teenagers who play WoW & Rift, and make up 80% of the subscription power.. who have now flooded the market with ignorance of the MMO space), ... have never played in a sandbox style of game. They don't know how it differs from open style of play.
Lastly, sandbox games typically come at a premium. Their cost is vastly more than a run-of-the-mill themepark mmo. The OP tries to broach a topic he knows very little about.
The technical differences should not matter to the players, not at all. Before you call me words - I know what I am talking about, being a project leader and developer in client/server software for a decade. All the ideas that the players bring to the table here can be implemented quite easily, also the hardware is not an issue at all.
The big cost factors in a project like a MMO are not the developers that code the game, the big cost factors are the artists designing the graphics, the world designers and the customer support. Therefore you see more and more games with better and innovative technologies, but with smalller and smaller world with less content in the world.
Sandboxes are not harder to make than themeparks, they are even cheaper (no quests, no story), if the world designers reuse the same textures very often.
Originally posted by Warmaker Originally posted by czekoskwigel
Originally posted by azmundai
Originally posted by milkpudding It's simply harder to achieve the same level of gratification in sandbox compared to themepark. The sense of gratification keeps players going and not feeling 'bored'.
The most common complaint that I've heard from friends playing sandbox games is "I'm bored coz there's nothing much going on"
Thats funny, that's pretty much why im not playing any themepark games. So, you're not playing themepark games because there's stuff going on, and you would prefer a lack of content? What he's getting at is how Themeparks constantly nudge you along for the next thing: The next point of "gratification" and someone telling you how awesome you are. To the point of trying something different is a detriment to your character's progress. Sandbox games have shown players going about the game world doing their business, whatever it may be. Some people like to see, discover, and figure out things to do on their own. Some people just like being led by the nose; Gaming is very guided and specific. Why do you think Themeparks are called just that?
People want to blame WoW because it brought a ton of new players to mmorpg. People want to blame theme park developers and they want to blame investors. Most of all, they want to blame the WoW players and the Rift players, considering them 'stupid' or 'ignorant'.
Blame the people who wrote things like Mortal Online. Blame every developer who wrote a game by assuming that players living in a virtual world would want to play the exact same kind of game the developer does, rosy tinted backwards facing glasses and all. Eve is the most successful sandbox game running and it took twelve years to get there. There is no example, anywhere of a sandbox game worth investing money in...not if you want to get your money back in a reasonable amount of time. Five years is a reasonable expectation.
Somebody needs to suck it up and write a Sandbox Rift. A sandbox game that can make money back on box sales when the game releases. A game that isn't full of lag, stuttering, bugs and exploits. A game that actually works and doesn't cater to the hardcore ffa pvp crowd. Then you'll see some investment money coming in.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It's simply harder to achieve the same level of gratification in sandbox compared to themepark. The sense of gratification keeps players going and not feeling 'bored'.
The most common complaint that I've heard from friends playing sandbox games is "I'm bored coz there's nothing much going on"
Thats funny, that's pretty much why im not playing any themepark games.
So, you're not playing themepark games because there's stuff going on, and you would prefer a lack of content?
What he's getting at is how Themeparks constantly nudge you along for the next thing: The next point of "gratification" and someone telling you how awesome you are. To the point of trying something different is a detriment to your character's progress.
Sandbox games have shown players going about the game world doing their business, whatever it may be.
Some people like to see, discover, and figure out things to do on their own. Some people just like being led by the nose; Gaming is very guided and specific. Why do you think Themeparks are called just that?
People want to blame WoW because it brought a ton of new players to mmorpg. People want to blame theme park developers and they want to blame investors. Most of all, they want to blame the WoW players and the Rift players, considering them 'stupid' or 'ignorant'.
Blame the people who wrote things like Mortal Online. Blame every developer who wrote a game by assuming that players living in a virtual world would want to play the exact same kind of game the developer does, rosy tinted backwards facing glasses and all. Eve is the most successful sandbox game running and it took twelve years to get there. There is no example, anywhere of a sandbox game worth investing money in...not if you want to get your money back in a reasonable amount of time. Five years is a reasonable expectation.
Somebody needs to suck it up and write a Sandbox Rift. A sandbox game that can make money back on box sales when the game releases. A game that isn't full of lag, stuttering, bugs and exploits. A game that actually works and doesn't cater to the hardcore ffa pvp crowd. Then you'll see some investment money coming in.
That thar were a might pow'ful post, Mr Lizard.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by lizardbones A "..." game that can make money back on box sales when the game releases. A game that isn't full of lag, stuttering, bugs and exploits. A game that actually works and doesn't cater to the hardcore ffa pvp crowd. Then you'll see some investment money coming in.
They do, constantly, and they are called WoW clones, themeparks, w/e.
Even EVE had to add more themepark elements to attract more people. The typical player does not like to feel aimless and needs to be directed to the fun else they get bored quick. They have little initiative.
I was recently contacted by a business associate that I worked with a few days/months/years ago.
The work was IT related regarding some tools and their ROI (return of investment).
This particular work is somewhat similar to the themepark / sandbox divide and I'm thinking if it can be applied here.
Basically, a company hired us to to get some numbers for a tool they wanted to do XYZ.
Either the company paid someone to make them XYZ using the tools, or train their staff to make the XYZ.
Both had their postivies and negatives, training their staff meant the company could do more with the tools later while paying up-front meant they got what they wanted quicker with less cost; since training fees could be ignored.
The numbers were looked at and the 'pay up-front' was selected. From a business point of view, the 'pay-up-front' had less risk and better ROI for ABC amount of years.
I'm always told that sandbox is 'devs giving the player the tools to make content' while themepark is 'devs creating the content'. If that is the case, can the above example be applied to the sandbox / themepark discussion?
Purely from a business case point of view, themepark has 'less risk'. Players know what they are getting.
Could this be a reason why people prefer to play themepark games more than sandbox ones?
Here is my take on it...
The reason I "think" that we've seen so much more themepark MMO development (over sandbox) is because it taps into a MUCH larger playerbase....casual gamers.
Back when Sandbox was synonomous with MMORPGs, casual gamers played games they could pick up / pause / put down whenever they wanted. They played games that you could jump in for 30-40 minutes before class, work, etc. and put it down for later.
ENTER Blizzard into the MMORPG market. They found one of the most potentially lucrative pricing models in the MMORPG market place (reoccuring monthly fee for game access) and managed to bring with them the largest sub-section of the gamer pie...casual gamers. They
They lowered the barriers of entry for casual gamers by drasticly reducing the learning curve and making most of the content soloable....which coincidently were the two MAIN factors many casual gamers stayed out of MMORPGs for.
If your really interested in marketing theory...I suggest looking up the Blue Oceans Theory. It's my opinion that Blizzard used this to create 12 million subscribers in a sub-market of gaming that only had a few million people in.
So it's important to understand who we are talking about when we say "gamers want this....." or "gamers don't like this...". What is comprised of these gamers has changed drasticly over the last 6-7 years.
Secondly, I think that themepark MMORPG development is more predictable and scripted than sandbox development. Themepark development puts full control in the hands of the developer of each section of your game's playerbase is doing. If they are lvl 10, they must level here....if they are lvl 20, then they must level here or here....etc. Since most themepark games are gear driven.....developers can more accurately control access to gear that empowers players.
If you don't want players mucking around with Super Boss X yet....then don't give them access to the gear that allows them to challenge Super Boss X yet.
Since Thempark development is more pro-active and scripted, PUBLISHERS are probably more likely to hand over investment money if you can show a nice predictable development schedule. Since MMORPG gaming is risky business....Publishers will want every assurance they can get that the game will work out.
So if themepark gaming can pull in over 10x the potential subscribers as sandbox MMOs could, and the predictable nature of themepark development makes it easier for publshers to invest.....then YES, I think you could make a better business case with themeparks.
With all that said, while the OPPROTUNITY is higher among themepark games....you're also dealing with a much more fickle playerbase. Casual gamers....being what they are, casual gamers....will float from game to game and will not invest as much time / energy / effort into a game as many "hardcore" gamers will.
Activision's CEO made a comment about having to compete with social gaming. On it's face, it sounds rediculous that WOW would compete with farmville....but there is some merit to the statement. The more casual of an audience that you change your game to appeal to.....the more forms of entertainment you have to compete with.
Ultima Online (king daddy of sandboxes) might have turned a lot of people off....but that remaining playerbase that stuck around was not moonlighting with other casual gaming on the side. UO was not losing time with it's playerbase because they were off playing Mario World. However.....MANY WOW players ARE also playing Halo, Call of Duty, etc.
So I think you can be successful at both (with each having their own strengths and weaknesses), but themepark development will probably give you the most opprotunity if its executed well.
A "..." game that can make money back on box sales when the game releases. A game that isn't full of lag, stuttering, bugs and exploits. A game that actually works and doesn't cater to the hardcore ffa pvp crowd. Then you'll see some investment money coming in.
They do, constantly, and they are called WoW clones, themeparks, w/e.
No point investing money where is no demand.
Good point, but when the numbers between themepark audience & sandbox audience are SOOO different, you could still potentially do better with a semi-successful themepark than you could with a REALLY successful sandbox.
Case in point.....EVE is regarded as the most successful sandbox MMORPG currently running. I think EVE sports something around 300k subs.
Warhammer Online also has something north of 300,000 subscribers and by most measures is considered a failure.
So if your posed with which way you want to develop, knowing that the upside of sandbox is 300,000 and the DOWNSIDE of a themepark is 300,000.....which are you going to pick?
I understand that development costs between the two are also probably different. It may cost less money to put together a good sandbox....but does that make up for the difference in box sales & subs?
So if your posed with which way you want to develop, knowing that the upside of sandbox is 300,000 and the DOWNSIDE of a themepark is 300,000.....which are you going to pick?
While the first number seems in the general ballpark (if we want to ignore Second Life, There/vMTV, Muxlim, or the many other voirtual world environments that are dismissed because they don't have magic and orcs) what data is there to support that 300k is the low end for subscription themepark MMOs? The example you presented, Warhammer, hasn't seen a subscriber count anywhere near that size since December 2008.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I do think that some of the sandbox games do have a weak game model, even if they have a relatively sound business model. The reliance on 'user created' content seems to be very limiting to a game. The users can only create content with the tools provided in-game, and too frequently, these consist of nothing but crafting and combat. The only content that the user can generate is 'collect some mats for me' or 'kill the other guys'. Ultimately, that hurts the sandbox game as much as a lack of funding, marketing, etc. does.
----------
Fundamentally, the OP describes a 'buy or build' choice. The buy option might be cheaper and more immediate, but might not fit the company's business needs as closely. The build option can fit the business needs better, but the cost and development time must be considered.
I worked with a business that had this very problem. Their business used a very non-standard accounting and purchasing system (that had been briefly popular in the 1920s-30s). Auditors marveled over the methods, but it wasn't very condusive to automation. Eventually, the company decided to buy a standard General Ledger Accounting / Purchasing software package and change the business to work the way the software worked. They couldn't or didn't want to adapt, and the company essentially went out of business within two years.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
It is very hard to accurately compare subscription numbers since there is no requirement for developers to accurately report it.
Very true.
I think the biggest problem is that developers are building for some fictional audience size that has not been proven to really exist rather than building for actual audience size. For example,
Three Rings based their staff, expenses and planning around a game with a subscriber based of a coupel thousand. As a result, when the game took off to tens of thousands, it was - by every realistic measure - a very successful game.
Teppy and his team created ATITD for an audience of a thousand or so, and received more than double that.
It's very clear that a lot of the people in this crowd (MMORPG.com) want a sandbox MMO.
It's also very clear that there are wildly different views here of what a sandbox MMO should be.
It seems that a small team building a game with an expected 5k-10k subs can not only create a successful game for its target audience but make some serious bank for themselves in the process. I don't think many developers, of ANY style of MMO, are being realistic about what they can or will have in subscribers. Like many MMO gamers, they seem to place hope as a much higher decision factor than history, fact and data.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I do think that some of the sandbox games do have a weak game model, even if they have a relatively sound business model. The reliance on 'user created' content seems to be very limiting to a game. The users can only create content with the tools provided in-game, and too frequently, these consist of nothing but crafting and combat. The only content that the user can generate is 'collect some mats for me' or 'kill the other guys'. Ultimately, that hurts the sandbox game as much as a lack of funding, marketing, etc. does.
----------
Fundamentally, the OP describes a 'buy or build' choice. The buy option might be cheaper and more immediate, but might not fit the company's business needs as closely. The build option can fit the business needs better, but the cost and development time must be considered.
I worked with a business that had this very problem. Their business used a very non-standard accounting and purchasing system (that had been briefly popular in the 1920s-30s). Auditors marveled over the methods, but it wasn't very condusive to automation. Eventually, the company decided to buy a standard General Ledger Accounting / Purchasing software package and change the business to work the way the software worked. They couldn't or didn't want to adapt, and the company essentially went out of business within two years.
I'm taking off my business hat and putting the gamer hat back on to disagree with the statement regarding sandbox content limitations.
Infact, the sandbox games I've played (Ultima Online, and to some extent Star Wars Galaxies & Lineage 2) were more liberating than any of the themepark games that have released in the last 5 or so years.
This might be anicdotal evidence, but my memories of playing MMORPGs over the last 10 years hasn't been downing any one particular raid boss or completing a one particular quest chain.....it was PvP fights with rival clans in different scenarios. Many of these rivalries came as a result of endgame political fighting over territory, cities, or castles....all Sandbox Tools. My memories are of my small tower and all my treasures I stored inside of it from past battles & dungeon crawls.....also another sandbox mechanic.
Another example is what I've experienced in endgame in Lineage 2. The castle system was a territory control mechanic that gave the clan that controled the castle (taken by a siege event) power to set taxes for surrounding cities and gave exclusive access to buffs and hunting areas. It took an alliance of clans to pull off a proper siege against another alliance that owned a castle & its privlidges.
This caused a TON of political infighting and a constant changing of alliances between clans, with scandalous betrayals and supprise alliances. These affiliations carried over into control over certian hunting grounds that dropped specific materials for crafting. This made for TONS of meaningful real world PvP...something completely absent in most current themepark MMOs.
Again, more meaningful & much more fun to recall than the first time I downed Ragnaros (of which I went on to kill 50 more times) in WOW.
Point being, with the right tools.....players will generate an infinitely more interesting and dynamic endgame with more replayability than any new dungeon or battleground will.
In your build / buy scenario....does the themepark match with the build or buy scenario? Both currently exist.
I really don't know why themeparks are so popular and sandbox so unpopular.... I liked the SWG when it was still sandbox. It was fun to make changes in the world the way you liked it on your own place. I like the idea of building something of your own somewhere in the open mmo world or make changes based on your actions for the rest of the players, but to a limit ofc.
I was looking for good sandbox mmo game lately but couldn't find one that'd satisfy me with it's options. I kinda like the both themepark and sandbox to the same level but don't know why sandbox games are getting more and more left out of the dev part. Even SWG turned to themepark based game after a while (which sucked since they took everything fun and awesome about SWG out then and turned it into "just another game").
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life." -------------------------------
I really don't know why themeparks are so popular and sandbox so unpopular.... I liked the SWG when it was still sandbox. It was fun to make changes in the world the way you liked it on your own place. I like the idea of building something of your own somewhere in the open mmo world or make changes based on your actions for the rest of the players, but to a limit ofc.
I was looking for good sandbox mmo game lately but couldn't find one that'd satisfy me with it's options. I kinda like the both themepark and sandbox to the same level but don't know why sandbox games are getting more and more left out of the dev part. Even SWG turned to themepark based game after a while (which sucked since they took everything fun and awesome about SWG out then and turned it into "just another game").
There was an interview with Richard Garriot (creator of Ultima Online...and participated in Tabula Rasa & Lineage 2) where he posed the same question.
I really think it has a lot to do with the players playing the game. Again...back when Ultima Online & EQ were the only 2 real options in the MMORPG market, you had a much LESS diverse playerbase that knew what they were getting into when they decided to play MMORPGs. It was a genere for folks that couldn't find the challenge or connection with other players in any other game genere.
Now that's changed. You can get a similar play experience (as a soloing MMORPGer) playing single player RPGs or multi-player Co-Ops. Thats largely because the new audience in the MMORPG market ARE former single player RPG gamers, and other casual gaming.
In order to maximize the monthly subscription pricing model, Blizzard made MMORPGs more palatable for casual gamers....as such, the majority of the new MMORPG playerbase WANT the themepark model. They don't want to be bothered with "finding their own way" or making lemonaide out of lemons. They don't want to be bothered with having to get in groups to get stuff done. They just want to log in...get some gaming done and log out. They also want to feel like they've made substantial progress in their limited time in game (less than an hour play cycles).
So for all the reasons that casual gamers stayed out of the MMORPG market back in the UO days......they are now playing MMORPGs because game dev companies like Blizzard have been working to remove those barriers.
Warhammer Online also has something north of 300,000 subscribers and by most measures is considered a failure.
Wrong. Business is measured by money only and in that regard, both are successful games.
Agreed. 300,000 current subscribers, plus how many box sales have they had, and how many subscribers overall?
Sorry....money isn't the only determining factor (albeit one of the most important measures). There is usually some sort of mission statement attached with these kind of projects. One of them is to earn a profit for shareholders, the others probably have something to do with being a quality MMORPG experience that will be a formitable presense in the MMO scene. Not meeting those goals means it's a failure in the original scope decided upon when the game launched.
This is just my opinion, but I doubt that EA had in mind closing all but 4 servers & a population down to 300k in less than 6 months after launch. In fact, I'm sure they thought for sure this game would atleast provide for a viable option to WOW....which at 12 million subs holds around 60% of the MMO marketshare.
9/2008 - 800k subscriptions
12/2008 - 300k subscriptions
2010 estimates - 80k subscriptions
4 of the original 70 servers remaining
So I'll restate.....by MOST measures, its considered a failure.
I'm a fan of theme park games because sandbox games usually lack enough depth or direction to keep interest and most people are too lazy to be bothered to create anything elaborate in a sandbox environment(myself included). To be fair I think I spend more time in sandbox games on average than themepark games... I mean I spent something like 30 hours in Terraria and maybe 50-60 in Minecraft but sandbox games are never as memorable. You get a dumb idea to build a boat in the middle of nowhere in Minecraft... and once you're done it's like "Okay, now what?". You can't do anything with the boat. The redstone/circuitry stuff has depth to it but the rest of it doesn't really have anything to it.
In my opinion I think all games should have both rolled into one. The Elder Scrolls series I think really does it right, where there's a main quest that's themepark, there are sidequests all over that you can do at any time, you can buy a house and live in it and purchase things for it, crafting, etc etc. It can use a little more sandboxing but it's not 100% linear. It also supports heavy modification so people come out with dungeons and questlines and all sorts of things for it through mods. There are too many games that adopt either one or the other and there aren't enough games that are in that grey area that do both.
In terms of revenue, themeparks do expansion packs and DLC and that sort of thing to extend the life of their game. Sandbox games usually patch new things in for free, which is nice. It doesn't do anything for revenue except for potentially attracting new customers because you're always in the limelight with people highlighting the new stuff in each version, and its free publicity if you're Mojang because people actually want to hear about Minecraft. Terraria patches in new stuff here and there but you never hear about it on game sites, it's all about Minecraft so it's not as lucrative for the folks who run Terraria to keep adding to it for free.
Now Playing: Mission Against Terror, Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Dark Souls, League of Legends, Minecraft, and the piano. =3
Why are there always an active thread like this. Either one saying that sandboxes sells bad and they therefor sucks based on comparisions between Wow and a few AA themeparks and some poor budget indie sandboxes, or the ones saying one form or another is superior.
Weak games have a weak business case, themeparks or sandbox does not matter a least.
Look on single player games, there you have actual AAA games that are sadboxes and the good ones sells fines, and the reason for that isn't that sandboxes only works in single player games but the fact that Bethesda and Rockstar are a lot more competent than companies like Star vault and aventurine.
Good games will sell. A competent dev can make a fun game out of any friggin idea and a incompetent can't make a good game no matter what he does. Good funding Vs bad funding also adds to the mathematics.
Anyone who thinks that you can't make a good and well selling sandbox game are as blind as anyone thinking all themepark games will sell well no matter if they are good or not.
The current MMO companies prefer making themeparks out of several reasons, mainly because they are actually easier to make, the companies that did singleplayer games before did single player themeparks and the investors always hope for a new Wow.
Yeah, this is probably pointless anyways since most people seems to think that one or another type of games suckand nothing I post can shange your mind, but if you think about and examine good games you might realize that it isn't really the mechanics of a game that makes it good.
Cmon Loke....this is smoke and mirrors.
Sandbox singleplayer games play akin to EQ. Fallout, Elder Scrolls, GTA, Read Dead Redemption etc......alternative roles to combat are only meant as a side activity.
Even the Sims couldnt cut it as a sandbox MMO. That says everything.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Honestly, sandboxes have has many fans maybe more than themepark mmos. The problem is sandbox relies on the players to do their part, so if you have a bad launch...it doesn't succeed. Thats why you see small companies with little funding trying them, but not the large companies. Sandboxes are much riskier...that said, if a large company made one and did it right...it would be great, the current sandboxes are made by little companies that can't support their games.
Incognito www.incognito-gaming.us "You're either with us or against us"
The problem is sandbox relies on the players to do their part, so if you have a bad launch...it doesn't succeed.
I think that part of the problem is built in to a sandbox, a themepark can be launched fully ready with all the content in place from the "starting zone" with all the rides in place and the paths between them, everyone starting gets the full experience.
With a sandbox, on launch the players are scratching around more exploring and learning how to use the tools the Devs have left in there, it takes a while for people to find a role and to choose their aims and then the metagame kicks in where competing goals clash and economic competition kicks in and that is the important part of the sandbox experience, people coming together to reach a goal that others are striving against them for.
The early adopters in a sandbox are pioneers who set the game up for those following.
For that reason I do not believe sandboxes are able to have a "successful" launch compared to a themepark.
Many don't even understand the technical difference, let alone the history & progeny of how the MMO space came to exist.
"People" offer up ideas & suggestions with little knowledge of what they are talking about. "Poeple" typically have no clue about server farms, computer & the mechanics behind gameworlds. Yet, they have all kinds of erroneous opinions about sandbow & themepark. Which only indicates they, themselves have very little clue of the distiction between said topic.
Most "people" ( I keep using that in quotes, because I am sure JPZ is talking about kids/children/teenagers who play WoW & Rift, and make up 80% of the subscription power.. who have now flooded the market with ignorance of the MMO space), ... have never played in a sandbox style of game. They don't know how it differs from open style of play.
Lastly, sandbox games typically come at a premium. Their cost is vastly more than a run-of-the-mill themepark mmo. The OP tries to broach a topic he knows very little about.
The technical differences should not matter to the players, not at all. Before you call me words - I know what I am talking about, being a project leader and developer in client/server software for a decade. All the ideas that the players bring to the table here can be implemented quite easily, also the hardware is not an issue at all.
The big cost factors in a project like a MMO are not the developers that code the game, the big cost factors are the artists designing the graphics, the world designers and the customer support. Therefore you see more and more games with better and innovative technologies, but with smalller and smaller world with less content in the world.
Sandboxes are not harder to make than themeparks, they are even cheaper (no quests, no story), if the world designers reuse the same textures very often.
It doesn't matter to a player, but it certainly matters to anyone trying to discuss a ga?e mechanic.
The server type, thus the game type is the single most important a decision the developer can make, it stipulates whether or not a game will be Zones (thus themepark), or Open World, thus a sandbox. Many people cannot make this overly true distinction & just allow for some marketing department to fool/influence people perception of game mechanics.
You yourself claimed knowledge, yet was also unable to make the distinction.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
Well in all honesty there really hasn't been a good sanbox in a long time. SWG was good but they never had the masses go crazy for it. I think in order to give the sanbox game a fair shake we need a top notch developer to make a good sandbox instead of low level inde developers claming they can't finish the game due to the lack of funds.
Comments
Some nice discussion and debates.
I wish to iterate that this thread was never intended to bash sandbox/themepark/sandboxy themeparky glow-in-the-dark merry-go-round etc
It was an interesting thought I had due to a real life work I did and see if it could be applied in an MMO gamestyle setting.
I do like the overseas trip analogy. As someone who has taken a planned group trip to Europe and a 'have backpack, will travel' to Asia as well, I can see the similarities.
I am finding myself less on the 'backpack' and more on the 'nice hotel room at night' nowadays. >_>
I think it comes down to 'security' (less risk). We want security in our homes, neighborhoods, jobs, financial etc and it isn't surprising to see it being applied to our entertainment as well.
Hmm, maybe that's why movie sequels are so popular in Hollywood? But I guess that's a derail. :P
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
The technical differences should not matter to the players, not at all. Before you call me words - I know what I am talking about, being a project leader and developer in client/server software for a decade. All the ideas that the players bring to the table here can be implemented quite easily, also the hardware is not an issue at all.
The big cost factors in a project like a MMO are not the developers that code the game, the big cost factors are the artists designing the graphics, the world designers and the customer support. Therefore you see more and more games with better and innovative technologies, but with smalller and smaller world with less content in the world.
Sandboxes are not harder to make than themeparks, they are even cheaper (no quests, no story), if the world designers reuse the same textures very often.
Currently playing: EverQuest
Waiting for Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen
Thats funny, that's pretty much why im not playing any themepark games.
So, you're not playing themepark games because there's stuff going on, and you would prefer a lack of content?
What he's getting at is how Themeparks constantly nudge you along for the next thing: The next point of "gratification" and someone telling you how awesome you are. To the point of trying something different is a detriment to your character's progress.
Sandbox games have shown players going about the game world doing their business, whatever it may be.
Some people like to see, discover, and figure out things to do on their own. Some people just like being led by the nose; Gaming is very guided and specific. Why do you think Themeparks are called just that?
People want to blame WoW because it brought a ton of new players to mmorpg. People want to blame theme park developers and they want to blame investors. Most of all, they want to blame the WoW players and the Rift players, considering them 'stupid' or 'ignorant'.
Blame the people who wrote things like Mortal Online. Blame every developer who wrote a game by assuming that players living in a virtual world would want to play the exact same kind of game the developer does, rosy tinted backwards facing glasses and all. Eve is the most successful sandbox game running and it took twelve years to get there. There is no example, anywhere of a sandbox game worth investing money in...not if you want to get your money back in a reasonable amount of time. Five years is a reasonable expectation.
Somebody needs to suck it up and write a Sandbox Rift. A sandbox game that can make money back on box sales when the game releases. A game that isn't full of lag, stuttering, bugs and exploits. A game that actually works and doesn't cater to the hardcore ffa pvp crowd. Then you'll see some investment money coming in.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
That thar were a might pow'ful post, Mr Lizard.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
They do, constantly, and they are called WoW clones, themeparks, w/e.
No point investing money where is no demand.
Even EVE had to add more themepark elements to attract more people. The typical player does not like to feel aimless and needs to be directed to the fun else they get bored quick. They have little initiative.
Here is my take on it...
The reason I "think" that we've seen so much more themepark MMO development (over sandbox) is because it taps into a MUCH larger playerbase....casual gamers.
Back when Sandbox was synonomous with MMORPGs, casual gamers played games they could pick up / pause / put down whenever they wanted. They played games that you could jump in for 30-40 minutes before class, work, etc. and put it down for later.
ENTER Blizzard into the MMORPG market. They found one of the most potentially lucrative pricing models in the MMORPG market place (reoccuring monthly fee for game access) and managed to bring with them the largest sub-section of the gamer pie...casual gamers. They
They lowered the barriers of entry for casual gamers by drasticly reducing the learning curve and making most of the content soloable....which coincidently were the two MAIN factors many casual gamers stayed out of MMORPGs for.
If your really interested in marketing theory...I suggest looking up the Blue Oceans Theory. It's my opinion that Blizzard used this to create 12 million subscribers in a sub-market of gaming that only had a few million people in.
So it's important to understand who we are talking about when we say "gamers want this....." or "gamers don't like this...". What is comprised of these gamers has changed drasticly over the last 6-7 years.
Secondly, I think that themepark MMORPG development is more predictable and scripted than sandbox development. Themepark development puts full control in the hands of the developer of each section of your game's playerbase is doing. If they are lvl 10, they must level here....if they are lvl 20, then they must level here or here....etc. Since most themepark games are gear driven.....developers can more accurately control access to gear that empowers players.
If you don't want players mucking around with Super Boss X yet....then don't give them access to the gear that allows them to challenge Super Boss X yet.
Since Thempark development is more pro-active and scripted, PUBLISHERS are probably more likely to hand over investment money if you can show a nice predictable development schedule. Since MMORPG gaming is risky business....Publishers will want every assurance they can get that the game will work out.
So if themepark gaming can pull in over 10x the potential subscribers as sandbox MMOs could, and the predictable nature of themepark development makes it easier for publshers to invest.....then YES, I think you could make a better business case with themeparks.
With all that said, while the OPPROTUNITY is higher among themepark games....you're also dealing with a much more fickle playerbase. Casual gamers....being what they are, casual gamers....will float from game to game and will not invest as much time / energy / effort into a game as many "hardcore" gamers will.
Activision's CEO made a comment about having to compete with social gaming. On it's face, it sounds rediculous that WOW would compete with farmville....but there is some merit to the statement. The more casual of an audience that you change your game to appeal to.....the more forms of entertainment you have to compete with.
Ultima Online (king daddy of sandboxes) might have turned a lot of people off....but that remaining playerbase that stuck around was not moonlighting with other casual gaming on the side. UO was not losing time with it's playerbase because they were off playing Mario World. However.....MANY WOW players ARE also playing Halo, Call of Duty, etc.
So I think you can be successful at both (with each having their own strengths and weaknesses), but themepark development will probably give you the most opprotunity if its executed well.
Good point, but when the numbers between themepark audience & sandbox audience are SOOO different, you could still potentially do better with a semi-successful themepark than you could with a REALLY successful sandbox.
Case in point.....EVE is regarded as the most successful sandbox MMORPG currently running. I think EVE sports something around 300k subs.
Warhammer Online also has something north of 300,000 subscribers and by most measures is considered a failure.
So if your posed with which way you want to develop, knowing that the upside of sandbox is 300,000 and the DOWNSIDE of a themepark is 300,000.....which are you going to pick?
I understand that development costs between the two are also probably different. It may cost less money to put together a good sandbox....but does that make up for the difference in box sales & subs?
While the first number seems in the general ballpark (if we want to ignore Second Life, There/vMTV, Muxlim, or the many other voirtual world environments that are dismissed because they don't have magic and orcs) what data is there to support that 300k is the low end for subscription themepark MMOs? The example you presented, Warhammer, hasn't seen a subscriber count anywhere near that size since December 2008.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It is very hard to accurately compare subscription numbers since there is no requirement for developers to accurately report it.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
I do think that some of the sandbox games do have a weak game model, even if they have a relatively sound business model. The reliance on 'user created' content seems to be very limiting to a game. The users can only create content with the tools provided in-game, and too frequently, these consist of nothing but crafting and combat. The only content that the user can generate is 'collect some mats for me' or 'kill the other guys'. Ultimately, that hurts the sandbox game as much as a lack of funding, marketing, etc. does.
----------
Fundamentally, the OP describes a 'buy or build' choice. The buy option might be cheaper and more immediate, but might not fit the company's business needs as closely. The build option can fit the business needs better, but the cost and development time must be considered.
I worked with a business that had this very problem. Their business used a very non-standard accounting and purchasing system (that had been briefly popular in the 1920s-30s). Auditors marveled over the methods, but it wasn't very condusive to automation. Eventually, the company decided to buy a standard General Ledger Accounting / Purchasing software package and change the business to work the way the software worked. They couldn't or didn't want to adapt, and the company essentially went out of business within two years.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Very true.
I think the biggest problem is that developers are building for some fictional audience size that has not been proven to really exist rather than building for actual audience size. For example,
Three Rings based their staff, expenses and planning around a game with a subscriber based of a coupel thousand. As a result, when the game took off to tens of thousands, it was - by every realistic measure - a very successful game.
Teppy and his team created ATITD for an audience of a thousand or so, and received more than double that.
It's very clear that a lot of the people in this crowd (MMORPG.com) want a sandbox MMO.
It's also very clear that there are wildly different views here of what a sandbox MMO should be.
It seems that a small team building a game with an expected 5k-10k subs can not only create a successful game for its target audience but make some serious bank for themselves in the process. I don't think many developers, of ANY style of MMO, are being realistic about what they can or will have in subscribers. Like many MMO gamers, they seem to place hope as a much higher decision factor than history, fact and data.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I'm taking off my business hat and putting the gamer hat back on to disagree with the statement regarding sandbox content limitations.
Infact, the sandbox games I've played (Ultima Online, and to some extent Star Wars Galaxies & Lineage 2) were more liberating than any of the themepark games that have released in the last 5 or so years.
This might be anicdotal evidence, but my memories of playing MMORPGs over the last 10 years hasn't been downing any one particular raid boss or completing a one particular quest chain.....it was PvP fights with rival clans in different scenarios. Many of these rivalries came as a result of endgame political fighting over territory, cities, or castles....all Sandbox Tools. My memories are of my small tower and all my treasures I stored inside of it from past battles & dungeon crawls.....also another sandbox mechanic.
Another example is what I've experienced in endgame in Lineage 2. The castle system was a territory control mechanic that gave the clan that controled the castle (taken by a siege event) power to set taxes for surrounding cities and gave exclusive access to buffs and hunting areas. It took an alliance of clans to pull off a proper siege against another alliance that owned a castle & its privlidges.
This caused a TON of political infighting and a constant changing of alliances between clans, with scandalous betrayals and supprise alliances. These affiliations carried over into control over certian hunting grounds that dropped specific materials for crafting. This made for TONS of meaningful real world PvP...something completely absent in most current themepark MMOs.
Again, more meaningful & much more fun to recall than the first time I downed Ragnaros (of which I went on to kill 50 more times) in WOW.
Point being, with the right tools.....players will generate an infinitely more interesting and dynamic endgame with more replayability than any new dungeon or battleground will.
In your build / buy scenario....does the themepark match with the build or buy scenario? Both currently exist.
I really don't know why themeparks are so popular and sandbox so unpopular.... I liked the SWG when it was still sandbox. It was fun to make changes in the world the way you liked it on your own place. I like the idea of building something of your own somewhere in the open mmo world or make changes based on your actions for the rest of the players, but to a limit ofc.
I was looking for good sandbox mmo game lately but couldn't find one that'd satisfy me with it's options. I kinda like the both themepark and sandbox to the same level but don't know why sandbox games are getting more and more left out of the dev part. Even SWG turned to themepark based game after a while (which sucked since they took everything fun and awesome about SWG out then and turned it into "just another game").
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------
Wrong. Business is measured by money only and in that regard, both are successful games.
There was an interview with Richard Garriot (creator of Ultima Online...and participated in Tabula Rasa & Lineage 2) where he posed the same question.
I really think it has a lot to do with the players playing the game. Again...back when Ultima Online & EQ were the only 2 real options in the MMORPG market, you had a much LESS diverse playerbase that knew what they were getting into when they decided to play MMORPGs. It was a genere for folks that couldn't find the challenge or connection with other players in any other game genere.
Now that's changed. You can get a similar play experience (as a soloing MMORPGer) playing single player RPGs or multi-player Co-Ops. Thats largely because the new audience in the MMORPG market ARE former single player RPG gamers, and other casual gaming.
In order to maximize the monthly subscription pricing model, Blizzard made MMORPGs more palatable for casual gamers....as such, the majority of the new MMORPG playerbase WANT the themepark model. They don't want to be bothered with "finding their own way" or making lemonaide out of lemons. They don't want to be bothered with having to get in groups to get stuff done. They just want to log in...get some gaming done and log out. They also want to feel like they've made substantial progress in their limited time in game (less than an hour play cycles).
So for all the reasons that casual gamers stayed out of the MMORPG market back in the UO days......they are now playing MMORPGs because game dev companies like Blizzard have been working to remove those barriers.
Agreed. 300,000 current subscribers, plus how many box sales have they had, and how many subscribers overall?
Sorry....money isn't the only determining factor (albeit one of the most important measures). There is usually some sort of mission statement attached with these kind of projects. One of them is to earn a profit for shareholders, the others probably have something to do with being a quality MMORPG experience that will be a formitable presense in the MMO scene. Not meeting those goals means it's a failure in the original scope decided upon when the game launched.
This is just my opinion, but I doubt that EA had in mind closing all but 4 servers & a population down to 300k in less than 6 months after launch. In fact, I'm sure they thought for sure this game would atleast provide for a viable option to WOW....which at 12 million subs holds around 60% of the MMO marketshare.
9/2008 - 800k subscriptions
12/2008 - 300k subscriptions
2010 estimates - 80k subscriptions
4 of the original 70 servers remaining
So I'll restate.....by MOST measures, its considered a failure.
I'm a fan of theme park games because sandbox games usually lack enough depth or direction to keep interest and most people are too lazy to be bothered to create anything elaborate in a sandbox environment(myself included). To be fair I think I spend more time in sandbox games on average than themepark games... I mean I spent something like 30 hours in Terraria and maybe 50-60 in Minecraft but sandbox games are never as memorable. You get a dumb idea to build a boat in the middle of nowhere in Minecraft... and once you're done it's like "Okay, now what?". You can't do anything with the boat. The redstone/circuitry stuff has depth to it but the rest of it doesn't really have anything to it.
In my opinion I think all games should have both rolled into one. The Elder Scrolls series I think really does it right, where there's a main quest that's themepark, there are sidequests all over that you can do at any time, you can buy a house and live in it and purchase things for it, crafting, etc etc. It can use a little more sandboxing but it's not 100% linear. It also supports heavy modification so people come out with dungeons and questlines and all sorts of things for it through mods. There are too many games that adopt either one or the other and there aren't enough games that are in that grey area that do both.
In terms of revenue, themeparks do expansion packs and DLC and that sort of thing to extend the life of their game. Sandbox games usually patch new things in for free, which is nice. It doesn't do anything for revenue except for potentially attracting new customers because you're always in the limelight with people highlighting the new stuff in each version, and its free publicity if you're Mojang because people actually want to hear about Minecraft. Terraria patches in new stuff here and there but you never hear about it on game sites, it's all about Minecraft so it's not as lucrative for the folks who run Terraria to keep adding to it for free.
Now Playing: Mission Against Terror, Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Dark Souls, League of Legends, Minecraft, and the piano. =3
Visit my fail Youtube channel(don't leave me nasty messages!): http://www.youtube.com/user/Mirii471
Cmon Loke....this is smoke and mirrors.
Sandbox singleplayer games play akin to EQ. Fallout, Elder Scrolls, GTA, Read Dead Redemption etc......alternative roles to combat are only meant as a side activity.
Even the Sims couldnt cut it as a sandbox MMO. That says everything.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Honestly, sandboxes have has many fans maybe more than themepark mmos. The problem is sandbox relies on the players to do their part, so if you have a bad launch...it doesn't succeed. Thats why you see small companies with little funding trying them, but not the large companies. Sandboxes are much riskier...that said, if a large company made one and did it right...it would be great, the current sandboxes are made by little companies that can't support their games.
Incognito
www.incognito-gaming.us
"You're either with us or against us"
Fixed for you.
I think that part of the problem is built in to a sandbox, a themepark can be launched fully ready with all the content in place from the "starting zone" with all the rides in place and the paths between them, everyone starting gets the full experience.
With a sandbox, on launch the players are scratching around more exploring and learning how to use the tools the Devs have left in there, it takes a while for people to find a role and to choose their aims and then the metagame kicks in where competing goals clash and economic competition kicks in and that is the important part of the sandbox experience, people coming together to reach a goal that others are striving against them for.
The early adopters in a sandbox are pioneers who set the game up for those following.
For that reason I do not believe sandboxes are able to have a "successful" launch compared to a themepark.
The technical differences should not matter to the players, not at all. Before you call me words - I know what I am talking about, being a project leader and developer in client/server software for a decade. All the ideas that the players bring to the table here can be implemented quite easily, also the hardware is not an issue at all.
The big cost factors in a project like a MMO are not the developers that code the game, the big cost factors are the artists designing the graphics, the world designers and the customer support. Therefore you see more and more games with better and innovative technologies, but with smalller and smaller world with less content in the world.
Sandboxes are not harder to make than themeparks, they are even cheaper (no quests, no story), if the world designers reuse the same textures very often.
It doesn't matter to a player, but it certainly matters to anyone trying to discuss a ga?e mechanic.The server type, thus the game type is the single most important a decision the developer can make, it stipulates whether or not a game will be Zones (thus themepark), or Open World, thus a sandbox. Many people cannot make this overly true distinction & just allow for some marketing department to fool/influence people perception of game mechanics.
You yourself claimed knowledge, yet was also unable to make the distinction.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
Well in all honesty there really hasn't been a good sanbox in a long time. SWG was good but they never had the masses go crazy for it. I think in order to give the sanbox game a fair shake we need a top notch developer to make a good sandbox instead of low level inde developers claming they can't finish the game due to the lack of funds.