Sandbox and AAA in the same sentance, must be April 1st.
Rofl. Yeah.
Sandbox games are not appealing to most people, sorry. Most sandbox fans can't seem to understand this, most people find them insanely BORING.
But why?
If i remember myself actually playing in an actual sandbox two decades ago, i also remember, that it allways was even more fun when i had my little shovel and bucket, a few forms and access to water Just sand? Mehh... ;(
Exactly. Subscribers are decreasing in literally all themepark MMOs (execpt for many Rift). They must be going somewhere..... I'm guessing they are getting tired and joining the innovation revolution!
You don't know what qualifies something as a "flop". A "flop" is something that fails to sell and perform to expectations on a commercial level, it has nothing to do with it's content. SW:TOR delivered what it promised, and innovated where it said it would, to expect it to retain 500k subs down from what is now barrelling towards or even beyond 2 million active subscribers is a bit of a bizzare opinion which quite clearly isn't founded on factual information. The game continues to grow it's playerbase, and retain it. Will the momentum continue through the rest of the year? Hopefully, but doubtful. To expect that would be silly, especially in today's market. Expecting it to drop so dramatically is equally as delusional; but on the other end of the spectrum. What people aren't really even recognizing is how happy most players are to have an RPG in their MMO for the first time. A game that puts the player in the front seat and allows them to play a game that they tailor their own story to. The only competition it faces right now is GW2, which is shaping up to be quite the game; however with it's lack of a genuine end-game, and it's honestly incomparable (for the worst) story content, I can easily foresee SW:TOR getting over that slump quite easily as long as they manage to continue pumping out quality content in the interrum.
EA investment backers, were told this for next quater estimates.
Evan Wilson of Pacific Crest wrote Friday that he has raised his sales estimate for “Star Wars” to 2.2 million units from 1.5 million units for the quarter, and said he remains “comfortable” with his 800,000 subscriber target when the company’s fiscal year ends in late March.
“Admittedly, we set our expectations as if Star Wars was to be a good, not great, MMO,” he wrote. “Fortunately, we think the company did too.”
Which was the main catalyst for the early rebound of EA stocks, but then collpased two days later after more reports came in. So yeah, 800k was supposed to be "the good news" to investors.
Well with all the recent WoW clones being flops (AoC, Rift, TOR) you'd think that the investors would get the message but most probably not.
Wait, TOR is a flop? It sold 2M boxes and retains 1.7M subs .. if that is a flop, many sandbox companies would LOVE to have flops.
Its considered a flop because it didn't live up to its Hype (not many games do, however TOR was over-promised and under-delivered). I expect it will retain about 500k subs in Q4, and possibly continue delivering to a niche audience in 2013 - unless Bioware follows Trion's footsteps and releases regular content and polish.
You don't know what qualifies something as a "flop". A "flop" is something that fails to sell and perform to expectations on a commercial level, it has nothing to do with it's content. SW:TOR delivered what it promised, and innovated where it said it would, to expect it to retain 500k subs down from what is now barrelling towards or even beyond 2 million active subscribers is a bit of a bizzare opinion which quite clearly isn't founded on factual information. The game continues to grow it's playerbase, and retain it. Will the momentum continue through the rest of the year? Hopefully, but doubtful. To expect that would be silly, especially in today's market. Expecting it to drop so dramatically is equally as delusional; but on the other end of the spectrum. What people aren't really even recognizing is how happy most players are to have an RPG in their MMO for the first time. A game that puts the player in the front seat and allows them to play a game that they tailor their own story to. The only competition it faces right now is GW2, which is shaping up to be quite the game; however with it's lack of a genuine end-game, and it's honestly incomparable (for the worst) story content, I can easily foresee SW:TOR getting over that slump quite easily as long as they manage to continue pumping out quality content in the interrum.
Ha ha ha ha...
Show us fact that the game is growing.
All evidence speaks of a dramatically decreasing population.
I still think it'll be down to 150-250k subs within the next few months, which would definately be a flop, relative to how much they spent on it. Sure as hell won't be the cash cow they were banking on.. but as we're just hitting the 2 month mark, it's still too early to call it, one way or the other.
"you think" does not make it true. Sure, *IF* it is down to 150-250k, then it *may* be a flop (depending how much they make on box sales .. it is still selling, you know).
And you are right to say that "it is too early to call it".
Exactly. Subscribers are decreasing in literally all themepark MMOs (execpt for many Rift). They must be going somewhere..... I'm guessing they are getting tired and joining the innovation revolution!
Going to all the MMOs turning F2P? All have dramatic increase in users and revenues. I suppose you can call it a business model innovation.
Exactly. Subscribers are decreasing in literally all themepark MMOs (execpt for many Rift). They must be going somewhere..... I'm guessing they are getting tired and joining the innovation revolution!
Going to all the MMOs turning F2P? All have dramatic increase in users and revenues. I suppose you can call it a business model innovation.
Thats a good point actually. A few years back I asociated F2P with failing korean MMOs which were pay to win, over the past year or so - F2P have moved over from that reputation. Now they are a different way to pay for an MMO rather than just another free game on the internet. I still think the term free to play is a bit misleading.
Exactly. Subscribers are decreasing in literally all themepark MMOs (execpt for many Rift). They must be going somewhere..... I'm guessing they are getting tired and joining the innovation revolution!
Going to all the MMOs turning F2P? All have dramatic increase in users and revenues. I suppose you can call it a business model innovation.
Will this business model innovation bring us better games?
Non-MMO sandboxes will keep being released to growing success. I'm sure there are many games in development right now chasing after Minecraft's indie success.
MMO Sandboxes are the only ones whose future is questionable, since they become much harder to create and the emphasis on freedom which works great in a singleplayer (or small-scale multiplayer) game becomes very detrimental in a large-scale multiplayer game.
If the market demands it, it'll be made and investors will chase after it. As it stands, people who've taken risks on the formula (like Darkfall) haven't exactly met with wild success, so investors are understanbly cautious about the sub-genre.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Exactly. Subscribers are decreasing in literally all themepark MMOs (execpt for many Rift). They must be going somewhere..... I'm guessing they are getting tired and joining the innovation revolution!
Going to all the MMOs turning F2P? All have dramatic increase in users and revenues. I suppose you can call it a business model innovation.
Thats a good point actually. A few years back I asociated F2P with failing korean MMOs which were pay to win, over the past year or so - F2P have moved over from that reputation. Now they are a different way to pay for an MMO rather than just another free game on the internet. I still think the term free to play is a bit misleading.
Not to most. Research (posted many times) has shown that most players do not pay. So yeah, it is free to a majority, and certainly free to ME (which is the most important).
Non-MMO sandboxes will keep being released to growing success. I'm sure there are many games in development right now chasing after Minecraft's indie success.
MMO Sandboxes are the only ones whose future is questionable, since they become much harder to create and the emphasis on freedom which works great in a singleplayer (or small-scale multiplayer) game becomes very detrimental in a large-scale multiplayer game.
If the market demands it, it'll be made and investors will chase after it. As it stands, people who've taken risks on the formula (like Darkfall) haven't exactly met with wild success, so investors are understanbly cautious about the sub-genre.
Exactly.
And all excuses about polish and bugs? Minecraft is a VERY unpolished game with minimal graphics (which i don't play). If people can make that pixelated mess a success, there is no excuse for MMO sandboxes. The only remaining reason is that the sandbox formula is just not resonating with consumers.
I am not sure what you mean by investors? Do you mean that large companies are unwilling to invest in a sandbox games.
Are you talking about public companies? Public companies have shareholders and those are considered to be the investors through which companies raise funds. But shareholders don't control a company. Shareholders manage their portfolio of investments and diversify through investing in different companies but they do not manage a company's investments. You have financial managers who manage their wealth and decide which projects should be undertaken.
So what do you mean by investors?
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Non-MMO sandboxes will keep being released to growing success. I'm sure there are many games in development right now chasing after Minecraft's indie success.
MMO Sandboxes are the only ones whose future is questionable, since they become much harder to create and the emphasis on freedom which works great in a singleplayer (or small-scale multiplayer) game becomes very detrimental in a large-scale multiplayer game.
If the market demands it, it'll be made and investors will chase after it. As it stands, people who've taken risks on the formula (like Darkfall) haven't exactly met with wild success, so investors are understanbly cautious about the sub-genre.
Exactly.
And all excuses about polish and bugs? Minecraft is a VERY unpolished game with minimal graphics (which i don't play). If people can make that pixelated mess a success, there is no excuse for MMO sandboxes. The only remaining reason is that the sandbox formula is just not resonating with consumers.
Minecraft aimed low and nailed it. I don't know if I'd call that a lack of polish, exactly. Maybe even just the opposite, it's the mark of very competent development, to know their limits, and stay well within them.
Maybe these other indie sandboxes would have done a lot better, if they'd aimed a lot lower, but they didn't. They wasted a huge amount of their resources on attempting to do a game with modern graphics, and end up with nothing left to do any decent gameplay or content. All those assets make the game way too cumbersome for a small indie development team to work with.
That is the massive difference between Minecraft, and for example, Mortal Online, Darkfall, Earthrise, or Xyson, just to name a few.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Sandbox and AAA in the same sentance, must be April 1st.
Rofl. Yeah.
Sandbox games are not appealing to most people, sorry. Most sandbox fans can't seem to understand this, most people find them insanely BORING.
But why?
If i remember myself actually playing in an actual sandbox two decades ago, i also remember, that it allways was even more fun when i had my little shovel and bucket, a few forms and access to water Just sand? Mehh... ;(
Exactly. Subscribers are decreasing in literally all themepark MMOs (execpt for many Rift). They must be going somewhere..... I'm guessing they are getting tired and joining the innovation revolution!
Or going back to single/multiplayer RPGs, MOBAs and shooters.
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
To me it seems as though investors are all about how much money they can make in the shortest period of time and themepark games offer that return, because MMO locusts(not my term) buy a product, play for a months, and then look to move on to the next shiney new toy.
So at the end of the day, the only people to blame for the lack of innovative games is players themselves, because they continue to buy a product because its shiney and new, instead of buying it because the product is actually worth buying.
Sandbox and AAA in the same sentance, must be April 1st.
Rofl. Yeah.
Sandbox games are not appealing to most people, sorry. Most sandbox fans can't seem to understand this, most people find them insanely BORING.
But why?
If i remember myself actually playing in an actual sandbox two decades ago, i also remember, that it allways was even more fun when i had my little shovel and bucket, a few forms and access to water Just sand? Mehh... ;(
Exactly. Subscribers are decreasing in literally all themepark MMOs (execpt for many Rift). They must be going somewhere..... I'm guessing they are getting tired and joining the innovation revolution!
Or going back to single/multiplayer RPGs, MOBAs and shooters.
If this is the case, then we should be worried about the industry as a whole. GW2 looks promising though.
Sandbox and AAA in the same sentance, must be April 1st.
Rofl. Yeah.
Sandbox games are not appealing to most people, sorry. Most sandbox fans can't seem to understand this, most people find them insanely BORING.
But why?
If i remember myself actually playing in an actual sandbox two decades ago, i also remember, that it allways was even more fun when i had my little shovel and bucket, a few forms and access to water Just sand? Mehh... ;(
Exactly. Subscribers are decreasing in literally all themepark MMOs (execpt for many Rift). They must be going somewhere..... I'm guessing they are getting tired and joining the innovation revolution!
I wouldn't be so sure to make statements like that. The market is simply saturated with more and more games each year. Some companies are experimenting with hybrid payment methods in an attempt to remain appealing in the face of an onslaught of "F2P" titles.
I do not think your conclusion that people are tired and joining your revolution is correct This community and it's posters are in no way representitive of the mmo market as a whole.
Theme Parks have a fatal flaw: reaching the end of pre-made static content. If Sandbox options don't appear more in upcoming MMOs then they genre will become like console games. The genre will be in the doldrums, then at some point the innovation cycle will reverse, and someone will make a hit Sandbox game that is accessible to theme park players. A fusion of the two seems inevitable to me in the evolution of games.
problem is people seem to think sandbox means full-loot pvp anywhere, which turns off a TON of people from the genre, I mean look at the gankfests we have in Mortal and Darkfall.
A good sandbox would contain a mix of sandbox and themepark, it needs player driven content but it needs a large amount of dev support and content.
in this I think the Secret World is doing a crossover game, it has lots of themepark and lots of sandbox innovations
I voted "none of the above". Investors can't STOP something from being made. They can only allow a company to make something through their investments. Not choosing to invest in something isn't the same as "stopping" it from being made.
Details aside, I do agree with you. Sandboxes have a poor track record; far worse than themeparks, which in themselves aren't a particularly solid, guaranteed return. And even the most successful sandbox, Eve, hasn't returned huge dividends which would justify the risk. it's because of this that investors just aren't that interested.
"She may not have a great personality, but at least she's ugly."
It is easy! They make to much money to fast and have a 3 month turn around until the next game.
Look at EA and their game launches alone. Of course they don't care about any game lasting for a long time because they already have a new one around the corner and we the gamers keep feeding them our money in hopes to have a good game, MMO or not.
It is not the investors its the players and the MMO media that are stopping the development of a AAA sandbox.
The players expectations are huge and unrealistic but at the same time players will buy any hyped game and ignore all the warning signs that the game is unfinished. Players allow developers to release unfinished buggy products. Players allow developers to lie to them and never learn. Players have sent developers a clear message that they care little aboutt he quality of a game or the design. if you hype it enpough we will buy millions of boxes. Marketing is mroe important than quality or design.
The MMO media is eve more culpable. They hire people that simply do not play MMOs. They write reviews and previews based on 1-2 hours playtime. They repeat verbatim the talking points issued by developers. They never hold the develoeprs or themselves accountable. They never dig to give players an honest preview or review. Because sites like MMORPG. Com simply do not care. They only care about page hits and that means their intrests are aligned in hyping poor games.
The Third issues is its simply not possible to make a finished sandbox game right now. There is not enough money and not enough time. Scott Hartsman talks a lot about this in his blogs. He calls it going a big. He said a game can go big but it will release an unfinished unpolished game. He argues there simply is not enough time or money to do both. Releasing a big unfinished and unploished game will quickly be rejected by an unrealistic playerbase who does not have the attention span or patience to wait for a developer to finish the game. A game only gets one shot at release and then its done. Hartsman argues that a game can go small with a much narrower gameplay release with polish and finished content. Then attampt to expand horizontally after release. Which is what he eventually did with Rift. BTW going big he means lots of horizontal content like big world, multiple leveling paths, multiple systems like crafting, housing building, systems like diplomacy, etc.
The problem is mainly the players. They do not have the patience to wait on a sandbox to finish. Companies do not have the cash or time to release a finsihed sandbox game. A game like Archeage has more potential to be different because it can be released in the east 1st where the playerbase is more mature and patient and then finish and polish the game before releasing it in the west. But absent a situation where a Western release happenes a year two after an Eastern release it would be very hard to release a sandbox mainstream game.
Now a niche sanbox game is certainly possible and there are a number of games like Wurm and H&H with Salem being in development. WIth a much smaller development budget they do not need a large playerbase. With game engines becoming cheaper one would expect to see a lot more and better niche sanbox games in the future. But mainstream I doubt it unless Archeage hits big.
Other options on the table include: Darkfall, Mortal Online and Xyson. They're all sandboxes, however they are MMOs being developed by indie studios. All of those titles have dangerously low populations; considering Sandboxes are built around player interaction, that can only be bad thing.
TL;DR
But I know what you are going to do.
You aren’t going to read this wall of text, and just ignore me.
You wont Subscribe to any Sandbox games.
You wont List the games you do subscribe to at the beginning of your posts.
You wont stop using the meaningless word Innovation.
You wont make a post listing the feature and implementation you want.
You wont add a link to that post in your signature on every forum you use.
The Sandbox market, its consumer base has spoken with its numbers and its wallets. You don’t want a Sandbox MMO. If you wanted a AAA Sandbox you should have maintained a subscription on every Sandbox that came along. Even if you were banned from it.
I demand that every poster that wants a AAA Sandbox start there posts by listing what sandbox they are currently paying for and how long. And it better be a long list. When you say I’m not gonna pay for and indie title or a Korean port, what the industry hears is “I’m not gonna pay for a AAA Sandbox game at all, so don’t make one.” Guess what? They won’t.
So long as you whinge about there being no AAA Sandbox, and not paying for what Sandboxes there are you wont get heard. Once there is blood in the water, then sharks will come to feed. That is how it works.
Next I never want to see the word Innovation used in a post again. If you don’t list the feature you want, and how you want them implemented; they wont get made. Cuz, you know what Devs think is Innovative? VO, and Story, not open world PK.
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Investors are not stopping it, nor are they even failing to support it. They are simply asking that developers have a plan to get them their money back.. and sandbox developers havent provided that.
Bingo we have a winner.
Investors who are making these investments want their money back and "then some".
We all do. That's why we invest for our retirement. Who puts their retirement money (or any money for that matter) into something that is shaky at best unless one completely believes in the project and are just "investing" to support it.
Most people want a decent return on their investments. They invest in what they believe will get them that return.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Investors don't have much to do with it. They follow the promise of a return on their investment. If players wanted more sandbox games, investors would hapily throw their money at companies making sandbox games.
You may also find that there is still a demographic that wants and does play sandbox games, it just so happens that the largest demographic is for the AAA Themepark MMO's and that's where the largest return can be found.
Comments
Exactly. Subscribers are decreasing in literally all themepark MMOs (execpt for many Rift). They must be going somewhere..... I'm guessing they are getting tired and joining the innovation revolution!
EA investment backers, were told this for next quater estimates.
Evan Wilson of Pacific Crest wrote Friday that he has raised his sales estimate for “Star Wars” to 2.2 million units from 1.5 million units for the quarter, and said he remains “comfortable” with his 800,000 subscriber target when the company’s fiscal year ends in late March.
“Admittedly, we set our expectations as if Star Wars was to be a good, not great, MMO,” he wrote. “Fortunately, we think the company did too.”
Which was the main catalyst for the early rebound of EA stocks, but then collpased two days later after more reports came in. So yeah, 800k was supposed to be "the good news" to investors.
Ha ha ha ha...
Show us fact that the game is growing.
All evidence speaks of a dramatically decreasing population.
"you think" does not make it true. Sure, *IF* it is down to 150-250k, then it *may* be a flop (depending how much they make on box sales .. it is still selling, you know).
And you are right to say that "it is too early to call it".
Going to all the MMOs turning F2P? All have dramatic increase in users and revenues. I suppose you can call it a business model innovation.
Thats a good point actually. A few years back I asociated F2P with failing korean MMOs which were pay to win, over the past year or so - F2P have moved over from that reputation. Now they are a different way to pay for an MMO rather than just another free game on the internet. I still think the term free to play is a bit misleading.
Will this business model innovation bring us better games?
I don't think so.
Non-MMO sandboxes will keep being released to growing success. I'm sure there are many games in development right now chasing after Minecraft's indie success.
MMO Sandboxes are the only ones whose future is questionable, since they become much harder to create and the emphasis on freedom which works great in a singleplayer (or small-scale multiplayer) game becomes very detrimental in a large-scale multiplayer game.
If the market demands it, it'll be made and investors will chase after it. As it stands, people who've taken risks on the formula (like Darkfall) haven't exactly met with wild success, so investors are understanbly cautious about the sub-genre.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Not to most. Research (posted many times) has shown that most players do not pay. So yeah, it is free to a majority, and certainly free to ME (which is the most important).
Exactly.
And all excuses about polish and bugs? Minecraft is a VERY unpolished game with minimal graphics (which i don't play). If people can make that pixelated mess a success, there is no excuse for MMO sandboxes. The only remaining reason is that the sandbox formula is just not resonating with consumers.
I am not sure what you mean by investors? Do you mean that large companies are unwilling to invest in a sandbox games.
Are you talking about public companies? Public companies have shareholders and those are considered to be the investors through which companies raise funds. But shareholders don't control a company. Shareholders manage their portfolio of investments and diversify through investing in different companies but they do not manage a company's investments. You have financial managers who manage their wealth and decide which projects should be undertaken.
So what do you mean by investors?
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
No suprise sandbox MMO´s dont make it as it takes commitment and thinking to play.
Todays audience just wants to be stuffed in the throat with easy digestible, pre-chewed crap like WoW and SWTOR.
Minecraft aimed low and nailed it. I don't know if I'd call that a lack of polish, exactly. Maybe even just the opposite, it's the mark of very competent development, to know their limits, and stay well within them.
Maybe these other indie sandboxes would have done a lot better, if they'd aimed a lot lower, but they didn't. They wasted a huge amount of their resources on attempting to do a game with modern graphics, and end up with nothing left to do any decent gameplay or content. All those assets make the game way too cumbersome for a small indie development team to work with.
That is the massive difference between Minecraft, and for example, Mortal Online, Darkfall, Earthrise, or Xyson, just to name a few.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Or going back to single/multiplayer RPGs, MOBAs and shooters.
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
To me it seems as though investors are all about how much money they can make in the shortest period of time and themepark games offer that return, because MMO locusts(not my term) buy a product, play for a months, and then look to move on to the next shiney new toy.
So at the end of the day, the only people to blame for the lack of innovative games is players themselves, because they continue to buy a product because its shiney and new, instead of buying it because the product is actually worth buying.
If this is the case, then we should be worried about the industry as a whole. GW2 looks promising though.
I wouldn't be so sure to make statements like that. The market is simply saturated with more and more games each year. Some companies are experimenting with hybrid payment methods in an attempt to remain appealing in the face of an onslaught of "F2P" titles.
I do not think your conclusion that people are tired and joining your revolution is correct This community and it's posters are in no way representitive of the mmo market as a whole.
Theme Parks have a fatal flaw: reaching the end of pre-made static content. If Sandbox options don't appear more in upcoming MMOs then they genre will become like console games. The genre will be in the doldrums, then at some point the innovation cycle will reverse, and someone will make a hit Sandbox game that is accessible to theme park players. A fusion of the two seems inevitable to me in the evolution of games.
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011
problem is people seem to think sandbox means full-loot pvp anywhere, which turns off a TON of people from the genre, I mean look at the gankfests we have in Mortal and Darkfall.
A good sandbox would contain a mix of sandbox and themepark, it needs player driven content but it needs a large amount of dev support and content.
in this I think the Secret World is doing a crossover game, it has lots of themepark and lots of sandbox innovations
I voted "none of the above". Investors can't STOP something from being made. They can only allow a company to make something through their investments. Not choosing to invest in something isn't the same as "stopping" it from being made.
Details aside, I do agree with you. Sandboxes have a poor track record; far worse than themeparks, which in themselves aren't a particularly solid, guaranteed return. And even the most successful sandbox, Eve, hasn't returned huge dividends which would justify the risk. it's because of this that investors just aren't that interested.
"She may not have a great personality, but at least she's ugly."
That's how investors see sandboxes.
It is easy! They make to much money to fast and have a 3 month turn around until the next game.
Look at EA and their game launches alone. Of course they don't care about any game lasting for a long time because they already have a new one around the corner and we the gamers keep feeding them our money in hopes to have a good game, MMO or not.
It is not the investors its the players and the MMO media that are stopping the development of a AAA sandbox.
The players expectations are huge and unrealistic but at the same time players will buy any hyped game and ignore all the warning signs that the game is unfinished. Players allow developers to release unfinished buggy products. Players allow developers to lie to them and never learn. Players have sent developers a clear message that they care little aboutt he quality of a game or the design. if you hype it enpough we will buy millions of boxes. Marketing is mroe important than quality or design.
The MMO media is eve more culpable. They hire people that simply do not play MMOs. They write reviews and previews based on 1-2 hours playtime. They repeat verbatim the talking points issued by developers. They never hold the develoeprs or themselves accountable. They never dig to give players an honest preview or review. Because sites like MMORPG. Com simply do not care. They only care about page hits and that means their intrests are aligned in hyping poor games.
The Third issues is its simply not possible to make a finished sandbox game right now. There is not enough money and not enough time. Scott Hartsman talks a lot about this in his blogs. He calls it going a big. He said a game can go big but it will release an unfinished unpolished game. He argues there simply is not enough time or money to do both. Releasing a big unfinished and unploished game will quickly be rejected by an unrealistic playerbase who does not have the attention span or patience to wait for a developer to finish the game. A game only gets one shot at release and then its done. Hartsman argues that a game can go small with a much narrower gameplay release with polish and finished content. Then attampt to expand horizontally after release. Which is what he eventually did with Rift. BTW going big he means lots of horizontal content like big world, multiple leveling paths, multiple systems like crafting, housing building, systems like diplomacy, etc.
The problem is mainly the players. They do not have the patience to wait on a sandbox to finish. Companies do not have the cash or time to release a finsihed sandbox game. A game like Archeage has more potential to be different because it can be released in the east 1st where the playerbase is more mature and patient and then finish and polish the game before releasing it in the west. But absent a situation where a Western release happenes a year two after an Eastern release it would be very hard to release a sandbox mainstream game.
Now a niche sanbox game is certainly possible and there are a number of games like Wurm and H&H with Salem being in development. WIth a much smaller development budget they do not need a large playerbase. With game engines becoming cheaper one would expect to see a lot more and better niche sanbox games in the future. But mainstream I doubt it unless Archeage hits big.
TL;DR
But I know what you are going to do.
You aren’t going to read this wall of text, and just ignore me.
You wont Subscribe to any Sandbox games.
You wont List the games you do subscribe to at the beginning of your posts.
You wont stop using the meaningless word Innovation.
You wont make a post listing the feature and implementation you want.
You wont add a link to that post in your signature on every forum you use.
The Sandbox market, its consumer base has spoken with its numbers and its wallets. You don’t want a Sandbox MMO. If you wanted a AAA Sandbox you should have maintained a subscription on every Sandbox that came along. Even if you were banned from it.
I demand that every poster that wants a AAA Sandbox start there posts by listing what sandbox they are currently paying for and how long. And it better be a long list. When you say I’m not gonna pay for and indie title or a Korean port, what the industry hears is “I’m not gonna pay for a AAA Sandbox game at all, so don’t make one.” Guess what? They won’t.
So long as you whinge about there being no AAA Sandbox, and not paying for what Sandboxes there are you wont get heard. Once there is blood in the water, then sharks will come to feed. That is how it works.
Next I never want to see the word Innovation used in a post again. If you don’t list the feature you want, and how you want them implemented; they wont get made. Cuz, you know what Devs think is Innovative? VO, and Story, not open world PK.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Bingo we have a winner.
Investors who are making these investments want their money back and "then some".
We all do. That's why we invest for our retirement. Who puts their retirement money (or any money for that matter) into something that is shaky at best unless one completely believes in the project and are just "investing" to support it.
Most people want a decent return on their investments. They invest in what they believe will get them that return.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Investors don't have much to do with it. They follow the promise of a return on their investment. If players wanted more sandbox games, investors would hapily throw their money at companies making sandbox games.
You may also find that there is still a demographic that wants and does play sandbox games, it just so happens that the largest demographic is for the AAA Themepark MMO's and that's where the largest return can be found.