The reason the big publishers won't touch a sandbox is because the audience is too small to warrent a 10-100 million dollar project. They would rather risk 10 million on a WOW clone with a DOWNSIDE of 300k subs, instead of spending that same money on a sandbox that has an UPSIDE of around 300k subs.
Source? I have no doubt in my mind that if a big name publisher made a sandbox with the polish and accessibility of WoW as well as the standard advertising and hype that it would do at least as well as the WoW clones- even better if it drew from an established IP. The only reason why SWG didn't become the WoW of sandboxes was because of the horrible launch and eventually $OE f*cking the whole thing up. Look at how many people play Zynga games- you're really telling me that with that many people out there playing the -Ville games among others that there's no room to bring that idea to the next level and add tools for the more creative players to add things?
It's just short-sighted and lazy.
Source? You have no information, just like RajCaj. Don't have a double standard. If you ask the other person for source, you should provide it to support YOUR claims.
Neither of you have any hard information and it is pure guess work. If that is the case, since no one knows, the risk is HIGH and you can't blame developers of not investing 10s of millions of dollars.
The first person stated it as a fact the other "there is no doubt in my mind" so it's an opinion. And my opinion would be the same, I find it highly unlikely the sandbox style would be unable to ever go above 1mill subs with the right formula.
Just like I find it highly unlikely we are alone in the universe, doesn't necessarily mean I state it as a fact that we aren't.
However with a slight modification to the first post it could very well be a fact "The reason the big publishers won't touch a sandbox is because they think the audience is too small to warrent a 10-100 million dollar project."
BUT you ask him for a source. The SAME should apply to you whether you are the first or the second to put forth an opinion.
If you don't have any sources, just state your opinion as that. Don't think your opinion is any more valid than his since neither of you have any source.
The reason the big publishers won't touch a sandbox is because the audience is too small to warrent a 10-100 million dollar project. They would rather risk 10 million on a WOW clone with a DOWNSIDE of 300k subs, instead of spending that same money on a sandbox that has an UPSIDE of around 300k subs.
Source? I have no doubt in my mind that if a big name publisher made a sandbox with the polish and accessibility of WoW as well as the standard advertising and hype that it would do at least as well as the WoW clones- even better if it drew from an established IP. The only reason why SWG didn't become the WoW of sandboxes was because of the horrible launch and eventually $OE f*cking the whole thing up. Look at how many people play Zynga games- you're really telling me that with that many people out there playing the -Ville games among others that there's no room to bring that idea to the next level and add tools for the more creative players to add things?
It's just short-sighted and lazy.
Source? You have no information, just like RajCaj. Don't have a double standard. If you ask the other person for source, you should provide it to support YOUR claims.
Neither of you have any hard information and it is pure guess work. If that is the case, since no one knows, the risk is HIGH and you can't blame developers of not investing 10s of millions of dollars.
The first person stated it as a fact the other "there is no doubt in my mind" so it's an opinion. And my opinion would be the same, I find it highly unlikely the sandbox style would be unable to ever go above 1mill subs with the right formula.
Just like I find it highly unlikely we are alone in the universe, doesn't necessarily mean I state it as a fact that we aren't.
However with a slight modification to the first post it could very well be a fact "The reason the big publishers won't touch a sandbox is because they think the audience is too small to warrent a 10-100 million dollar project."
BUT you ask him for a source. The SAME should apply to you whether you are the first or the second to put forth an opinion.
If you don't have any sources, just state your opinion as that. Don't think your opinion is any more valid than his since neither of you have any source.
Thing is on this issue of sandbox I really dont THINK it has anything to do with possible customers. I THINK the demand would be there if it was in the market place. I THINK the real reason is simply because it costs more to develop and maintain...nothing more.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Thing is on this issue of sandbox I really dont THINK it has anything to do with possible customers. I THINK the demand would be there if it was in the market place. I THINK the real reason is simply because it costs more to develop and maintain...nothing more.
What you THINK is fine and dany. However, that is probably NOT enough for any investor to spend 10s of millions of dollars. The marketing company newszoo did lots of research on MMORPGs. I have seen reports about the growing trend (yes, with numbers, not wishy-washy OPINIONS) of F2P and things like that.
I wonder if they have info about the issue of hard core vs casual.
In fact, let me ask you this. Are YOU willing to bet 5 years of your career on making a hard core sandbox MMORPG?
Even the themepark games are not really themeparks anymore, they are the local church carnival.
As for the sandbox debate I think many people really do not understand the concept they only think ganking, full loot pvp. That is not what a sandbox enviroment is. It is not having the entire game scripted out for you. Today maybe the masses need everything pre-planned for them in advance with no work required, I am not sure.
Thing is on this issue of sandbox I really dont THINK it has anything to do with possible customers. I THINK the demand would be there if it was in the market place. I THINK the real reason is simply because it costs more to develop and maintain...nothing more.
What you THINK is fine and dany. However, that is probably NOT enough for any investor to spend 10s of millions of dollars. The marketing company newszoo did lots of research on MMORPGs. I have seen reports about the growing trend (yes, with numbers, not wishy-washy OPINIONS) of F2P and things like that.
I wonder if they have info about the issue of hard core vs casual.
In fact, let me ask you this. Are YOU willing to bet 5 years of your career on making a hard core sandbox MMORPG?
again. I repeat my key point.
The reason I think they do not make sandboxes is NOT because of the demand or lack of demand but becuase of the cost of creating and maintaining.
You are addressing a secondary point which is fine but my key point is that I THINK it has nothing to with demand but everything to do with cost.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The reason I think they do not make sandboxes is NOT because of the demand or lack of demand but becuase of the cost of creating and maintaining.
You are addressing a secondary point which is fine but my key point is that I THINK it has nothing to with demand but everything to do with cost.
Same point. The demand is not high enough to offset the cost. If they have a guarantee demand of 10M, they will start making it tomorrow.
On the flip side, if the game is costing $5 to make, they don't need much demand.
It is always a comparison between demand and supply (i.e. cost).
no...I understand the demand to set of fhe cost arguement but I dont think that even comes into play.
I think its is 10000000000%%% nothing more than cost. peroid end of story. I dont think they ever even consider if the player base can be larger or not.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Sandboxes aren't intrinsically expensive. A Tale in the Desert was made on a shoestring budget, and at its peak, had four paid employees. I think part of the problem is that some people think of "sandbox" as meaning things that computers can't realistically be programmed to do.
Sandboxes aren't intrinsically expensive. A Tale in the Desert was made on a shoestring budget, and at its peak, had four paid employees. I think part of the problem is that some people think of "sandbox" as meaning things that computers can't realistically be programmed to do.
I can program a computer to do so many things. Its more that the hardware can't handle the software load. I think there are many ways of getting around hardware limitations, mainly with much simpler graphics and physics. For instance I could probably get a gamemaker graphics level game that satisfied the majority of sandbox requirements.
Sandboxes aren't intrinsically expensive. A Tale in the Desert was made on a shoestring budget, and at its peak, had four paid employees. I think part of the problem is that some people think of "sandbox" as meaning things that computers can't realistically be programmed to do.
I can program a computer to do so many things. Its more that the hardware can't handle the software load. I think there are many ways of getting around hardware limitations, mainly with much simpler graphics and physics. For instance I could probably get a gamemaker graphics level game that satisfied the majority of sandbox requirements.
Sure, there's a lot that can be done. But some people seem to want endless amounts of choices and branching that means that they'll miss 99% of the content, but still want there to be plenty of content that they do do. You can give a game a lot of scripted content, but infinite content is harder.
Sandboxes aren't intrinsically expensive. A Tale in the Desert was made on a shoestring budget, and at its peak, had four paid employees. I think part of the problem is that some people think of "sandbox" as meaning things that computers can't realistically be programmed to do.
well that is a good point actually I concede my position.
In fact I forgot about how deep a LOT of inexpensive games have been so I totally withdraw my statement
Xyson is another example, although in all fairness not sure its actually working
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Sandboxes aren't intrinsically expensive. A Tale in the Desert was made on a shoestring budget, and at its peak, had four paid employees. I think part of the problem is that some people think of "sandbox" as meaning things that computers can't realistically be programmed to do.
I dont think anyone is (or should) argue that sandbox MMOs are not being made. However, certainly there is no AAA development in this space.
Sandboxes aren't intrinsically expensive. A Tale in the Desert was made on a shoestring budget, and at its peak, had four paid employees. I think part of the problem is that some people think of "sandbox" as meaning things that computers can't realistically be programmed to do.
I can program a computer to do so many things. Its more that the hardware can't handle the software load. I think there are many ways of getting around hardware limitations, mainly with much simpler graphics and physics. For instance I could probably get a gamemaker graphics level game that satisfied the majority of sandbox requirements.
Sure, there's a lot that can be done. But some people seem to want endless amounts of choices and branching that means that they'll miss 99% of the content, but still want there to be plenty of content that they do do. You can give a game a lot of scripted content, but infinite content is harder.
Well actually you can generate endless content, its quite easy. The main issue is the graphical nature of the game and possibly how to modulate the challenge of auto content for players of varying levels. But then sandbox wise even scripted content might present challenge issues where some areas are more dangerous but in a sandbox its iffy to tell people that for exploration reasons.
Comments
BUT you ask him for a source. The SAME should apply to you whether you are the first or the second to put forth an opinion.
If you don't have any sources, just state your opinion as that. Don't think your opinion is any more valid than his since neither of you have any source.
Thing is on this issue of sandbox I really dont THINK it has anything to do with possible customers. I THINK the demand would be there if it was in the market place. I THINK the real reason is simply because it costs more to develop and maintain...nothing more.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
What you THINK is fine and dany. However, that is probably NOT enough for any investor to spend 10s of millions of dollars. The marketing company newszoo did lots of research on MMORPGs. I have seen reports about the growing trend (yes, with numbers, not wishy-washy OPINIONS) of F2P and things like that.
I wonder if they have info about the issue of hard core vs casual.
In fact, let me ask you this. Are YOU willing to bet 5 years of your career on making a hard core sandbox MMORPG?
Even the themepark games are not really themeparks anymore, they are the local church carnival.
As for the sandbox debate I think many people really do not understand the concept they only think ganking, full loot pvp. That is not what a sandbox enviroment is. It is not having the entire game scripted out for you. Today maybe the masses need everything pre-planned for them in advance with no work required, I am not sure.
again. I repeat my key point.
The reason I think they do not make sandboxes is NOT because of the demand or lack of demand but becuase of the cost of creating and maintaining.
You are addressing a secondary point which is fine but my key point is that I THINK it has nothing to with demand but everything to do with cost.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Same point. The demand is not high enough to offset the cost. If they have a guarantee demand of 10M, they will start making it tomorrow.
On the flip side, if the game is costing $5 to make, they don't need much demand.
It is always a comparison between demand and supply (i.e. cost).
no...I understand the demand to set of fhe cost arguement but I dont think that even comes into play.
I think its is 10000000000%%% nothing more than cost. peroid end of story. I dont think they ever even consider if the player base can be larger or not.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Sandboxes aren't intrinsically expensive. A Tale in the Desert was made on a shoestring budget, and at its peak, had four paid employees. I think part of the problem is that some people think of "sandbox" as meaning things that computers can't realistically be programmed to do.
I can program a computer to do so many things. Its more that the hardware can't handle the software load. I think there are many ways of getting around hardware limitations, mainly with much simpler graphics and physics. For instance I could probably get a gamemaker graphics level game that satisfied the majority of sandbox requirements.
Sure, there's a lot that can be done. But some people seem to want endless amounts of choices and branching that means that they'll miss 99% of the content, but still want there to be plenty of content that they do do. You can give a game a lot of scripted content, but infinite content is harder.
well that is a good point actually I concede my position.
In fact I forgot about how deep a LOT of inexpensive games have been so I totally withdraw my statement
Xyson is another example, although in all fairness not sure its actually working
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I dont think anyone is (or should) argue that sandbox MMOs are not being made. However, certainly there is no AAA development in this space.
Well actually you can generate endless content, its quite easy. The main issue is the graphical nature of the game and possibly how to modulate the challenge of auto content for players of varying levels. But then sandbox wise even scripted content might present challenge issues where some areas are more dangerous but in a sandbox its iffy to tell people that for exploration reasons.