They are games not exact analogies. In a game you can control all the tasks involved in getting the hoop to market yourself or even, gasp, co-operate with others to succeed in getting a complex task done..
You don't train sword skills, lift weights, run assault courses training to kill your dragon/shoot the hoop
Yes, but even if you do multiple tasks the game isn't going to appeal to hardcore players as much as themepark games where players also engage with multiple deep game systems. And EVE dilutes those interactions over long periods of time instead of chunking them up in more interesting spurts.
If we pretended every one of EVE's players was hardcore (laughably unlikely) and only 15% of WOW's players were hardcore, then WOW's hardcore players would still outnumber EVE's -- by a lot.
This is just a completely silly argument from the EVE side of the fence. Sandboxes simply don't garner more of the hardcore population of gamers than Themeparks.
Which is why this thread isn't about hardcore/casual, it's purely about sandbox gameplay being less compelling to most people (regardless of their engagement level.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by RefMinor Originally posted by czekoskwigel That's why Real Life isn't a sandpark, humans simply need rails in order to function as a community.
But real life is a sandbox, generally the strong willed and organise get to the top, and the man who can provide him with the logistics to do that is valued, and the "community" is then forged by those at the top. Not saying its right or wrong, but that's how it is, that's why America isn't run by the Indians and why Messrs Smith and Wesson had a very comfortable life.
In fact life is the ultimate sandbox, I can kill a stranger or buy him a drink, I can persuade him to invest in me or invest in him, I can build a house or burn one down, it's all my choice.
Statistically, people who have parents already at the top ride a train to the top or further. People who don't start out near the top tend to flail around the middle for a long time.
The people who start at the bottom or the middle are nearly mythical...it only happens because there are so many people in the world that it would almost have to happen a couple of times.
Go back through any Kings family tree and you will find a hard nosed bastard with a sword
We have had a similar dilemma in the company i work for concerning if it could be wise to either provide our customers with tools allowing them to expand the core functionality of our application or simply provide them with a more static approach.
We chose the first solution since we thought that it would be a time and money saver. But In the end it was proved that we HAD to alter the main functionality of our application ( too many times ) since there were people able to use these tools in a way that we could not predict.
And this case in my opinion applies to mmo products. In a sandbox mmo some players follow a basic ruleset while others don't and you may end up having a wide gap between losers and winners and of course this is bad if you are willing to keep everyone happy ( and paying ).
The themepark approach is safer and i recommend it, as a bussiness rule but i hate it as a player.
Originally posted by RefMinor Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by RefMinor Originally posted by czekoskwigel That's why Real Life isn't a sandpark, humans simply need rails in order to function as a community.
But real life is a sandbox, generally the strong willed and organise get to the top, and the man who can provide him with the logistics to do that is valued, and the "community" is then forged by those at the top. Not saying its right or wrong, but that's how it is, that's why America isn't run by the Indians and why Messrs Smith and Wesson had a very comfortable life.
In fact life is the ultimate sandbox, I can kill a stranger or buy him a drink, I can persuade him to invest in me or invest in him, I can build a house or burn one down, it's all my choice.
Statistically, people who have parents already at the top ride a train to the top or further. People who don't start out near the top tend to flail around the middle for a long time.
The people who start at the bottom or the middle are nearly mythical...it only happens because there are so many people in the world that it would almost have to happen a couple of times.
Go back through any Kings family tree and you will find a hard nosed bastard with a sword
Who had a Duke or Prince for a father and/or a Duchess or Princess for a mother. Stone layers and thatchers did not become royalty.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Since everyone working for a company, seems to prove their point....I worked for a company that did custom work for people mainly, and chose not to try to get into the mass production area, where their was more competition....Where a couple cents per pound of their product would make or break a sale.
They can charge more, for their custom product, and they are thriving, where as if they tried to enter the mass market, someone could smash them like a bug...even sell the product at a loss to drive them out...
The funny thing is, those big companies that do mass volume, they are no good at doing smaller, custom type runs, and the biggest supplier in the world, has a contract with the company I worked for, to produce smaller batches for them, providing the raw materials, and paying the company labor costs for production.
Could say that also mimcs what sometimes happens to small companies, that company could buy the company I worked for and it would be like an executive paying for lunch, but I think they realize they do not run that type of company well, but larger software companies often buy smaller studios for their expertise, and they often just end up ruining the smaller company and a lot of time the real talent leaves the smaller company, making it a waste.
Like I said before, if you supply something good, and of quality, you don't have to supply to the masses to make good money, if you have a good product.
The funny thing is, those big companies that do mass volume, they are no good at doing smaller, custom type runs
Did you know that you could get your gear altered to your exact description and personal preference in certain earlier games? Buy a home and write your own decor?
The scale of MMOs makes that kind of GM-Player direct contact pretty much impossible any more.
Except, perhaps, in a tiny Sandbox game. Maybe all of the people dying for "AAA" MMO are looking in the wrong direction as far as game size.
Content takes longer to deliver, and your operating cost model has to be toward a much more expensive game.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Zoo versus Safari.In a Zoo you will see animals,In Safari they are no guarantees that you will see anything.That is why themeparks will keep killing true sandboxes.Seeing a Lion out of cage is amazing,seeing Lion hunt in real world is amazing life change experiance but how people see that when they go on a Safari.The experiance in Safari is richer and better but you can't guaratee it and it takes a while to set it up
Themeparks are zoos they always be something cool,WoW for example you can pvp,craft,do some quests, and dungeon in 1 or 2 hours every day.In darkfall you can have a awesome pvp battle where you heroic stand against a bigger guild and beat and shortly after the battle a dragon attacks,then after you sneak to enemy hideout and steal a mount in front of 60 people and get away with it these moments are deeper and more memorable that the WoW moments but how often does that happen.Sandboxes are Safaris when something happens it is epic but it does not change the fact spend 2 hours seeing grass to reach spot where something might happen and will spend 2 more hours agian seeing grass on the way back.
What happens if you build a Zoo in middle of jungle and they are Safari rides from the Zoo.Then you are given choice spend 1 hour in the ZOO then spend rest of your day exploring or the whole day in zoo and 1 hour exploring the jungle if you choose.You can have a more robust experiance if you can mix the two
Themparks are too structured and its acessiblity kills depth,it will get more customers but water down the experiance,Pure Sandboxes are to open and normal has a barrier diffculty or effort which kills it ablitity to get casuals.So yes pure Sandboxes have a weaker buisness case but Hybrid Sandboxes on the other hand can prove enough structure while give enough freedom.A example of hybrid sandbox would by Oblvion it has a very clear set path for you to follow and do but any moment you can leave and explore and come across tons of things to do.It is amazing that keep getting incomplete hollow games or way to structure games.The risk in the middle ground is that you alienate both sides and get none but reward if you do right is you get every single type of gamer.
What is wrong with putting heavy structurized content in content in Sandbox,when somebody figures out hey if give players alot structure things do but never force them to do it this game could make a lot of money.
Zoo versus Safari.In a Zoo you will see animals,In Safari they are no guarantees that you will see anything.That is why themeparks will keep killing true sandboxes.Seeing a Lion out of cage is amazing,seeing Lion hunt in real world is amazing life change experiance but how people see that when they go on a Safari.The experiance in Safari is richer and better but you can't guaratee it and it takes a while to set it up
Themeparks are zoos they always be something cool,WoW for example you can pvp,craft,do some quests, and dungeon in 1 or 2 hours every day.In darkfall you can have a awesome pvp battle where you heroic stand against a bigger guild and beat and shortly after the battle a dragon attacks,then after you sneak to enemy hideout and steal a mount in front of 60 people and get away with it these moments are deeper and more memorable that the WoW moments but how often does that happen.Sandboxes are Safaris when something happens it is epic but it does not change the fact spend 2 hours seeing grass to reach spot where something might happen and will spend 2 more hours agian seeing grass on the way back.
What happens if you build a Zoo in middle of jungle and they are Safari rides from the Zoo.Then you are given choice spend 1 hour in the ZOO then spend rest of your day exploring or the whole day in zoo and 1 hour exploring the jungle if you choose.You can have a more robust experiance if you can mix the two
Themparks are too structured and its acessiblity kills depth,it will get more customers but water down the experiance,Pure Sandboxes are to open and normal has a barrier diffculty or effort which kills it ablitity to get casuals.So yes pure Sandboxes have a weaker buisness case but Hybrid Sandboxes on the other hand can prove enough structure while give enough freedom.A example of hybrid sandbox would by Oblvion it has a very clear set path for you to follow and do but any moment you can leave and explore and come across tons of things to do.It is amazing that keep getting incomplete hollow games or way to structure games.The risk in the middle ground is that you alienate both sides and get none but reward if you do right is you get every single type of gamer.
What is wrong with putting heavy structurized content in content in Sandbox,when somebody figures out hey if give players alot structure things do but never force them to do it this game could make a lot of money.
That is really stretching things.
Sandboxes are closer to home made food compared to resturant food.
Both can be great, problem is that it seems like most home cooks use the wrong heat and use the cheapest ingredients they can find.
Anyone thinking you can't make either type of game great have no real imagination. It is not true that sandboxes can't have as many players, single player companies like Bethesda have gone pair on pair with companies like Bioware and sell fine. What is true is that inexperienced devs with low funding will never get many players.
What we really need is Rockstar to make a MMO, they would pull off a sandbox with many players.
But frankly, I don't give a dang. We need good games, what mechanics they use matters little as long as they have some originality.
Originally posted by czekoskwigel That's why Real Life isn't a sandpark, humans simply need rails in order to function as a community.
But real life is a sandbox, generally the strong willed and organise get to the top, and the man who can provide him with the logistics to do that is valued, and the "community" is then forged by those at the top. Not saying its right or wrong, but that's how it is, that's why America isn't run by the Indians and why Messrs Smith and Wesson had a very comfortable life.
In fact life is the ultimate sandbox, I can kill a stranger or buy him a drink, I can persuade him to invest in me or invest in him, I can build a house or burn one down, it's all my choice.
That is a matter of perception really i could say that real life is the purest form of a themepark (atleast to those that believe in destiny or fate.), for that fact you are just living thru a series of choices that were chosen before you were born, and leading you to a end which those chooses made you ready to face. THen you can say that to a person that is completely believing that our fatee and future is unwriten the real world is a sand box that has no limitation on us at all, with nothign controling or guiding our travel thru the years of our lives. Which is true is a matter of hwo you see the world in how it works trully, i spent a numbr of years living in both mind sets and both can feel just as justified and the two types of mmos are good examples of that fact.
Loke666, "originality"... that's another big issue these days. Why do you think we've had countless threads about how everything plays the same?
Despite the potential of Sandboxes, they are weaker for business if you're trying for a AAA title. Again, due to WoW's unprecedented, long-running success, trying anything different will not get you much support to make the game. It's all very simple: Why would you ever fund a costly title with long development times that do not share many of the characteristics of the leading game in the genre?
I'd like to see more decently made AAA Sandbox MMORPGs, but seeing that anytime soon? About as likely as me becoming Dictator of Earth tomorrow morning with a supermodel of a wife.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Sandbox games will always look like a riskier business investment until two things happen:
1. someone takes the risk
2. the risk pays off
Not really if you think about it. Copying Wow is actually riskier, countless have tried and most have failed to even get back their initial investment.
I think the whole issue is regular stupidity. Some idiot looks on which game that makes most money and decides to copy that in hope it will give him as much without actually checking up how many similar games there is.
Making a great game is not the least risky since great games sell. But great games do take a bit of imagination and inventivness, something few genres are worse at then the MMOs.
Themeparks or sandbox is not the matter.
1. Do something no one else have done a zillion times.
2. Do it well.
That works for themeparks, sandboxes and hybridgames. But if you start your idea with "This game will be like (Wow, UO, other game) but with..." you're screwed.
I would say that if a devoloper well more a concept was brought forth to a group that showed with evidence the market for mmos (gamers and devolopers) wanting the style of mmo it would see more possibilty to be funded. Why? IT is because you show there is a market oout there to recup your money from that will or is desiring to play that style of game, with a show of being tired of the older or simular games that are out now. You could actually even keep a over arcing story to the game, with just alot of tools as well as open ended content to create your own life in the game without ever touching the story while others do.
Loke666, "originality"... that's another big issue these days. Why do you think we've had countless threads about how everything plays the same?
Despite the potential of Sandboxes, they are weaker for business if you're trying for a AAA title. Again, due to WoW's unprecedented, long-running success, trying anything different will not get you much support to make the game. It's all very simple: Why would you ever fund a costly title with long development times that do not share many of the characteristics of the leading game in the genre?
I'd like to see more decently made AAA Sandbox MMORPGs, but seeing that anytime soon? About as likely as me becoming Dictator of Earth tomorrow morning with a supermodel of a wife.
I still have hopes for Zenimax and CCPs upcomming games.
But I think it is a lot more about being easier to make and just plain stupidity.
Nothing is more risky today than making a expensive game similar to Wow, ask Mythic. The percentage of failure are horrible.
Compare that to Eve who while never earned Wow much money still gave in many times it total costs. I think UO and Eve probably are the only 2 AAA sandboxes made, well maybe SWG as well.
I shouldn't really be the spokeman for sandbox games, I really don't care what type of game I play as long as it is good. But doing the same thing over and over failing but hoping to succed eventually is a sign of insanity.
If few games using the classic MMO mechanics from M59, EQ and Wow whos made the last 5 years even got back the invested money, that tells us one of 2 things. Either that doesn't work anymore, or the genre itself is dying.
I don't believe it is dying so originality is the only thing left. Of course if no dev gets that eventually the genre might indeed die, but things like that usually fixes itself, all MMO devs aren't morons.
I also feel that Undead labs will hit the standard MMOs badly with a totally new type of game. Strain who leads it is no fool and have made plenty of great games in his time. And he isn't afraid of trying new things.
We'll see. Like I said many times on these boards, I quit the genre but I do hope something refreshing, something fun and different comes down the road. Diversity and gameplay freedom, uniqueness for player characters, tight, interdependent communities are at an all-time low, and those are very important for me.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Sandbox games will always look like a riskier business investment until two things happen:
1. someone takes the risk
2. the risk pays off
Not really if you think about it. Copying Wow is actually riskier, countless have tried and most have failed to even get back their initial investment.
I think the whole issue is regular stupidity. Some idiot looks on which game that makes most money and decides to copy that in hope it will give him as much without actually checking up how many similar games there is.
Making a great game is not the least risky since great games sell. But great games do take a bit of imagination and inventivness, something few genres are worse at then the MMOs.
Themeparks or sandbox is not the matter.
1. Do something no one else have done a zillion times.
2. Do it well.
That works for themeparks, sandboxes and hybridgames. But if you start your idea with "This game will be like (Wow, UO, other game) but with..." you're screwed.
Comments
Yes, but even if you do multiple tasks the game isn't going to appeal to hardcore players as much as themepark games where players also engage with multiple deep game systems. And EVE dilutes those interactions over long periods of time instead of chunking them up in more interesting spurts.
If we pretended every one of EVE's players was hardcore (laughably unlikely) and only 15% of WOW's players were hardcore, then WOW's hardcore players would still outnumber EVE's -- by a lot.
This is just a completely silly argument from the EVE side of the fence. Sandboxes simply don't garner more of the hardcore population of gamers than Themeparks.
Which is why this thread isn't about hardcore/casual, it's purely about sandbox gameplay being less compelling to most people (regardless of their engagement level.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But real life is a sandbox, generally the strong willed and organise get to the top, and the man who can provide him with the logistics to do that is valued, and the "community" is then forged by those at the top. Not saying its right or wrong, but that's how it is, that's why America isn't run by the Indians and why Messrs Smith and Wesson had a very comfortable life.
In fact life is the ultimate sandbox, I can kill a stranger or buy him a drink, I can persuade him to invest in me or invest in him, I can build a house or burn one down, it's all my choice.
Statistically, people who have parents already at the top ride a train to the top or further. People who don't start out near the top tend to flail around the middle for a long time.
The people who start at the bottom or the middle are nearly mythical...it only happens because there are so many people in the world that it would almost have to happen a couple of times.
Go back through any Kings family tree and you will find a hard nosed bastard with a swordYes it does.
We have had a similar dilemma in the company i work for concerning if it could be wise to either provide our customers with tools allowing them to expand the core functionality of our application or simply provide them with a more static approach.
We chose the first solution since we thought that it would be a time and money saver. But In the end it was proved that we HAD to alter the main functionality of our application ( too many times ) since there were people able to use these tools in a way that we could not predict.
And this case in my opinion applies to mmo products. In a sandbox mmo some players follow a basic ruleset while others don't and you may end up having a wide gap between losers and winners and of course this is bad if you are willing to keep everyone happy ( and paying ).
The themepark approach is safer and i recommend it, as a bussiness rule but i hate it as a player.
But real life is a sandbox, generally the strong willed and organise get to the top, and the man who can provide him with the logistics to do that is valued, and the "community" is then forged by those at the top. Not saying its right or wrong, but that's how it is, that's why America isn't run by the Indians and why Messrs Smith and Wesson had a very comfortable life.
In fact life is the ultimate sandbox, I can kill a stranger or buy him a drink, I can persuade him to invest in me or invest in him, I can build a house or burn one down, it's all my choice.
Statistically, people who have parents already at the top ride a train to the top or further. People who don't start out near the top tend to flail around the middle for a long time.
The people who start at the bottom or the middle are nearly mythical...it only happens because there are so many people in the world that it would almost have to happen a couple of times.
Go back through any Kings family tree and you will find a hard nosed bastard with a sword
Who had a Duke or Prince for a father and/or a Duchess or Princess for a mother. Stone layers and thatchers did not become royalty.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Since everyone working for a company, seems to prove their point....I worked for a company that did custom work for people mainly, and chose not to try to get into the mass production area, where their was more competition....Where a couple cents per pound of their product would make or break a sale.
They can charge more, for their custom product, and they are thriving, where as if they tried to enter the mass market, someone could smash them like a bug...even sell the product at a loss to drive them out...
The funny thing is, those big companies that do mass volume, they are no good at doing smaller, custom type runs, and the biggest supplier in the world, has a contract with the company I worked for, to produce smaller batches for them, providing the raw materials, and paying the company labor costs for production.
Could say that also mimcs what sometimes happens to small companies, that company could buy the company I worked for and it would be like an executive paying for lunch, but I think they realize they do not run that type of company well, but larger software companies often buy smaller studios for their expertise, and they often just end up ruining the smaller company and a lot of time the real talent leaves the smaller company, making it a waste.
Like I said before, if you supply something good, and of quality, you don't have to supply to the masses to make good money, if you have a good product.
Did you know that you could get your gear altered to your exact description and personal preference in certain earlier games? Buy a home and write your own decor?
The scale of MMOs makes that kind of GM-Player direct contact pretty much impossible any more.
Except, perhaps, in a tiny Sandbox game. Maybe all of the people dying for "AAA" MMO are looking in the wrong direction as far as game size.
Content takes longer to deliver, and your operating cost model has to be toward a much more expensive game.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Zoo versus Safari.In a Zoo you will see animals,In Safari they are no guarantees that you will see anything.That is why themeparks will keep killing true sandboxes.Seeing a Lion out of cage is amazing,seeing Lion hunt in real world is amazing life change experiance but how people see that when they go on a Safari.The experiance in Safari is richer and better but you can't guaratee it and it takes a while to set it up
Themeparks are zoos they always be something cool,WoW for example you can pvp,craft,do some quests, and dungeon in 1 or 2 hours every day.In darkfall you can have a awesome pvp battle where you heroic stand against a bigger guild and beat and shortly after the battle a dragon attacks,then after you sneak to enemy hideout and steal a mount in front of 60 people and get away with it these moments are deeper and more memorable that the WoW moments but how often does that happen.Sandboxes are Safaris when something happens it is epic but it does not change the fact spend 2 hours seeing grass to reach spot where something might happen and will spend 2 more hours agian seeing grass on the way back.
What happens if you build a Zoo in middle of jungle and they are Safari rides from the Zoo.Then you are given choice spend 1 hour in the ZOO then spend rest of your day exploring or the whole day in zoo and 1 hour exploring the jungle if you choose.You can have a more robust experiance if you can mix the two
Themparks are too structured and its acessiblity kills depth,it will get more customers but water down the experiance,Pure Sandboxes are to open and normal has a barrier diffculty or effort which kills it ablitity to get casuals.So yes pure Sandboxes have a weaker buisness case but Hybrid Sandboxes on the other hand can prove enough structure while give enough freedom.A example of hybrid sandbox would by Oblvion it has a very clear set path for you to follow and do but any moment you can leave and explore and come across tons of things to do.It is amazing that keep getting incomplete hollow games or way to structure games.The risk in the middle ground is that you alienate both sides and get none but reward if you do right is you get every single type of gamer.
What is wrong with putting heavy structurized content in content in Sandbox,when somebody figures out hey if give players alot structure things do but never force them to do it this game could make a lot of money.
That is really stretching things.
Sandboxes are closer to home made food compared to resturant food.
Both can be great, problem is that it seems like most home cooks use the wrong heat and use the cheapest ingredients they can find.
Anyone thinking you can't make either type of game great have no real imagination. It is not true that sandboxes can't have as many players, single player companies like Bethesda have gone pair on pair with companies like Bioware and sell fine. What is true is that inexperienced devs with low funding will never get many players.
What we really need is Rockstar to make a MMO, they would pull off a sandbox with many players.
But frankly, I don't give a dang. We need good games, what mechanics they use matters little as long as they have some originality.
Sandbox games will always look like a riskier business investment until two things happen:
1. someone takes the risk
2. the risk pays off
That is a matter of perception really i could say that real life is the purest form of a themepark (atleast to those that believe in destiny or fate.), for that fact you are just living thru a series of choices that were chosen before you were born, and leading you to a end which those chooses made you ready to face. THen you can say that to a person that is completely believing that our fatee and future is unwriten the real world is a sand box that has no limitation on us at all, with nothign controling or guiding our travel thru the years of our lives. Which is true is a matter of hwo you see the world in how it works trully, i spent a numbr of years living in both mind sets and both can feel just as justified and the two types of mmos are good examples of that fact.
Loke666, "originality"... that's another big issue these days. Why do you think we've had countless threads about how everything plays the same?
Despite the potential of Sandboxes, they are weaker for business if you're trying for a AAA title. Again, due to WoW's unprecedented, long-running success, trying anything different will not get you much support to make the game. It's all very simple: Why would you ever fund a costly title with long development times that do not share many of the characteristics of the leading game in the genre?
I'd like to see more decently made AAA Sandbox MMORPGs, but seeing that anytime soon? About as likely as me becoming Dictator of Earth tomorrow morning with a supermodel of a wife.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Not really if you think about it. Copying Wow is actually riskier, countless have tried and most have failed to even get back their initial investment.
I think the whole issue is regular stupidity. Some idiot looks on which game that makes most money and decides to copy that in hope it will give him as much without actually checking up how many similar games there is.
Making a great game is not the least risky since great games sell. But great games do take a bit of imagination and inventivness, something few genres are worse at then the MMOs.
Themeparks or sandbox is not the matter.
1. Do something no one else have done a zillion times.
2. Do it well.
That works for themeparks, sandboxes and hybridgames. But if you start your idea with "This game will be like (Wow, UO, other game) but with..." you're screwed.
I would say that if a devoloper well more a concept was brought forth to a group that showed with evidence the market for mmos (gamers and devolopers) wanting the style of mmo it would see more possibilty to be funded. Why? IT is because you show there is a market oout there to recup your money from that will or is desiring to play that style of game, with a show of being tired of the older or simular games that are out now. You could actually even keep a over arcing story to the game, with just alot of tools as well as open ended content to create your own life in the game without ever touching the story while others do.
I still have hopes for Zenimax and CCPs upcomming games.
But I think it is a lot more about being easier to make and just plain stupidity.
Nothing is more risky today than making a expensive game similar to Wow, ask Mythic. The percentage of failure are horrible.
Compare that to Eve who while never earned Wow much money still gave in many times it total costs. I think UO and Eve probably are the only 2 AAA sandboxes made, well maybe SWG as well.
I shouldn't really be the spokeman for sandbox games, I really don't care what type of game I play as long as it is good. But doing the same thing over and over failing but hoping to succed eventually is a sign of insanity.
If few games using the classic MMO mechanics from M59, EQ and Wow whos made the last 5 years even got back the invested money, that tells us one of 2 things. Either that doesn't work anymore, or the genre itself is dying.
I don't believe it is dying so originality is the only thing left. Of course if no dev gets that eventually the genre might indeed die, but things like that usually fixes itself, all MMO devs aren't morons.
I also feel that Undead labs will hit the standard MMOs badly with a totally new type of game. Strain who leads it is no fool and have made plenty of great games in his time. And he isn't afraid of trying new things.
We'll see. Like I said many times on these boards, I quit the genre but I do hope something refreshing, something fun and different comes down the road. Diversity and gameplay freedom, uniqueness for player characters, tight, interdependent communities are at an all-time low, and those are very important for me.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
good point