Not it doesn't. EVE is a very, very unique type of game. I love sandboxes, but don't like EVE. Too complicated (i like compex but not this much), my characters a ship, etc, etc. I don't think it's a bad game at all, just not for me. Also, 400k isn't a huge success. EVE is very special game where most of the "scape" it's made of is an empty void. It's even all in 1 server. How do you know that the players playing EVE like sandboxes at all? What if they just like space ships and complex styles of games and they don't care for traditional mmorpg fantasy sandboxes like AA, MO, DF, etc?
EVE isn't about themeparl or sandbox. It's in a special league of it's on.
It's intersting that when I tried to point out that EVE isn't bigger then it is, or growing faster then it is, is because you play a spaceship a bunch of people told me I was wrong.
Yet, if you read through all the responces in this thread you see the exact same thing repeated over and over.
People saying they want to play a sandbox, but they don't want to play EVE because you're a ship.
It's alos interesting that no matter how many times people point out that EVE is one of the very few PAY TO PLAY mmo's that has seen continual growth year in and year out, the anti-sandbox guys keep harping, yeah but it's got fewer subs then all the themeparks so it obviously doesn't work.
EVE is ONLY ONE game. ONE game. Even people who don't like EVE or sandboxes keep saying the same exact thing, IT'S THE ONLY GOOD SANDBOX OUT. It's not just a single game, it wold appear that there is a unified concensus that it's the only worthwhile sandbox mmo on the market at that!
Some of you are comparing the subscription numbers OF A SINGLE GAME, to the sub numbers of ALL THE THEMEPARKS. Guess what? Ford sells fewer cars then every other car company in the wold! << This is the arguement some of you keep using!
On a GAME BY GAME basis, EVE HAS MORE SUBS then most of the themeparks put out. IT HAS MORE SUBS, then DDO did before it went FREE TO PLAY, it has more subs then AoC before it want FREE TO PLAY, it has more subs then EQ2 before it went FREE TO PLAY, it has more subs then STO before it went FREE TO PLAY, it has more subs then CO before it went FREE TO PLAY, it has more subs then LoTRO before it went FREE TO PLAY. It will probably have more subs then ToR by the time it goes free to play.
EVE is doing what all these themeparks have been incapable of doing. GROWING. You can combine all the themeparks together all you want, you can not ignore the one fact that remains, EVE CONTINUES TO GROW WHILE EACH THEMEPARK THAT RELEASES CONTINUALLY LOSES SUBSCRIBERS AND THEN SWITCHES TO FREE TO PLAY.
List the subscription based themepark mmo's that continually grow, year after year. WoW is NOT on that list today. Name them!
This is so true. Add to this the fact that EvE is a quirky FFA PVP game thats 9 years old. I think the people arguing are arguing for the sake of winning not because they're interested in a resolution to the thread.
None of it having anything to do with anything I wrote or even relevant to the very topic you started.
Please, provide us a list of themepark MMO's that uses a subscription model, and shows continued growth every year. This should be easier then directing us to the AAA sandbox MMO that didn't work to support your claim that there's no market for that style of game; that other thing you couldn't do.
Thats the neglect I was talking about. Thats why Eve Online showed a decline in subs last fall. Should we talk about WoW when it had a track record of continual growth (up until 2009)? It doesn't matter. Especially when the size of your customer base is less than 4% of the market leader's.
Or 15% of the second highest (Aion).
Or 25% of the third (SWTOR).
What about Runescape and Dofus? Are either of those sandboxes? Both have more players than Eve does. And then there's the games mentioned that went F2P? Many of them make more money than Eve does. Like someone mentioned sometimes even four times more than what they did when their game was P2P.
Even Team Fortress 2 went F2P they made more money then they had when selling boxes. Battlefield Heroes is another succesful F2P example. Neither game hardly "failed" when the did the transformation. It shows that F2P is a very viable way to fund your game.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Yay I love it when random games get pulled into the mix for no apparent reason. Let's talk about how great Metal Gear Solid and Commander Keen are next.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
Yay I love it when random games get pulled into the mix for no apparent reason. Let's talk about how great Metal Gear Solid and Commander Keen are next.
Commander Keen was awesome! Jumping around on a pogo stick and fighting wolfs in trainingsuits, pure awesome! And Metal Gear is such a themepark game...or was it sandbox cause i could choose to kill or not to kill hmz......
Anyway this discusion is pointless. I saw someone giving the example that SWG and UO had a huge decline. But that decline wasn't there cause it was sandbox.
SWG decline happened when Sony Online took it over from Lucas Arts. When Sony took it over they made some drastic changes that totally ruined the game. Before you had to work really hard to make it as a jedi. It wasn't a class you could pick from the start and it was really hard to get to be one. Sony took over and boom, they made it a class you could choose from the start. And many more changes where made that made SWG into another game than it used to be, and with that the biggest ammount of players left SWG. This had nothing to do with it being a sandbox game, cause it had a great community when it was still sandbox, its whent down hill when Sony removed more and more of the orriginal gameplay to please the mainstream gamers who didn't want to invest time and energy in actually completing something.
SWG is the biggest example of how a sandbox game can appeal to all, even before Sony took over it was also a great game for people who want a themepark game cause it did offer quests to follow, you just wheren't bound on questing alone to lvl up. Entertainers for example lvled up by playing music or dance in a bar. Based on how many people where actually looking at them. You could play SWG just the way you liked it. You wheren't bound to a faction, you could choose to work for the Imperials, Rebels or just stay neutral. As bounty hunter you could work for both sides, just who ever had the highest bid. But there where many quests to follow for those who wanted to do them. Also RPers and none RPers played on the same servers and no one was hindered by each other. There was a amazing RP scene in that game, even though there where many none rpers. And guess what, the none RPers sure found it nice to see a active RP community making the game much more alive.
Ultima Online had a huge decline when EA made some drastic changes and Lord British left UO. Also the game was old and wanted to please the more mainstream gamer as well. Not because it was sandbox, cause for its time UO was a huge succes. People forget that before WoW the entire MMORPG genre wasn't that populair as it is today. But that doesn't mean those games where a fail and not as good, just the majority of people didn't play MMORPG's back than. WoW succeeded to make the MMORPG genre populair ammon the none MMORPG players. Cause Blizzard was known for making outstanding games and the Warcraft Universe had a huge fanbase so people wanted to play WoW cause it was the new warcraft game. But before WoW it where different times, but for its times UO and SWG where highly populated games untill the publishers began to change the games to much to appeal to a new crowd. The same crowd that has a big mouth now here saying sandbox games don't work and don't have a huge community.
But its funny anyway cause you see it everywhere no mather the genre. Look at the shooters, there its not sandbox vs themepark but rather CoD vs Battlefield...or Corridor shooters vs big maps with vehicle shooters. The CoD players will say that a big map with vehicles don't work, and BF players say that corridor shooters belong to the past. But at the end of the day none is right. Both have a crowd, so do the sandbox and themepark games have. And having million of players is still a huge crowd even though the other camp is more crowded. There hasn't been any good sandbox game in a while cause the publishers insist on themepark games only, yet themepark gamers blame the sandbox gamers for not being with enough people. Thats just stupid, if any big studio would make a MMORPG just as SWG was in its old days than you will see how many people love sandbox games...infact we would finally be rid of sandbox vs themepark again cause it would be a game that pleases both sides.
But this discusion is pointless cause its a discusion about what you like more, apples or orranges. Its a mather of taste and both sides have a huge community, even though there aren't many games for sandbox gamers that doesn't mean the community isn't there. And many arguments here are invalid. As someone said its funny how the sandbox genre has one game that gets compared in numbers to all themepark games together. EVE doesn't have the numbers WoW has....not one game has that is pay to play. Maybe the first month but most mmo's lose a drastic number after the first two months. WoW is unique in what they accomplished, no other MMO can top that for now, not a sandbox and not a themepark. But publishers need to realise this. EVE might not have the numbers WoW has, but it shows that giving people the power to control the game means you have a steady fanbase for years to come. Its better to only have 4 million active players for 8 - 10 years, than to have 10 million players just for 2 months and after that only about a million, no mather what kind of MMO you make.
Yay I love it when random games get pulled into the mix for no apparent reason. Let's talk about how great Metal Gear Solid and Commander Keen are next.
He implied that going F2P is a failure of sorts and I offered examples why that is not true.
It sure helps if you don't look at the issue through a keyhole.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
More accurately the assistant would say: "I'm sorry, we have only old widgets because apps have taken over the market. Would you like an app? To which the client would get upset because he wants a widget and he doesn't what has happened in the market.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Quirhid More accurately the assistant would say: "I'm sorry, we have only old widgets because apps have taken over the market. Would you like an app? To which the client would get upset because he wants a widget and he doesn't what has happened in the market.
Don't you just hate customers who don't want to buy what you feel like supplying?
in your 70+ pages, did you mention ArcheAge Online ?
SHHHHH!!!!!
We're not going to talk about that here because the fact that a AAA sandbox game is actually in beta now and already has a fairly large following doesn't really support the "sandboxes drool and themeparks rule" dogma that the OP and others are trying to spread.
Originally posted by Creslin321 Originally posted by loulaki in your 70+ pages, did you mention ArcheAge Online ?
SHHHHH!!!!!
We're not going to talk about that here because the fact that a AAA sandbox game is actually in beta now and already has a fairly large following doesn't really support the "sandboxes drool and themeparks rule" dogma that the OP and others are trying to spread.
SWToR had a very large following. So did Tera. Having a large pre-release following hasn't done either of those games a lot of good.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by loulaki in your 70+ pages, did you mention ArcheAge Online ?
SHHHHH!!!!!
We're not going to talk about that here because the fact that a AAA sandbox game is actually in beta now and already has a fairly large following doesn't really support the "sandboxes drool and themeparks rule" dogma that the OP and others are trying to spread.
SWToR had a very large following. So did Tera. Having a large pre-release following hasn't done either of those games a lot of good.
Maybe not, but having a large following basically proves that there is a market for the game. Whether or not the game succeeds is immaterial to this specific thread which argues that there is no large market for sandbox games at all.
Originally posted by Creslin321 Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by Creslin321Originally posted by loulaki in your 70+ pages, did you mention ArcheAge Online ?
SHHHHH!!!!! We're not going to talk about that here because the fact that a AAA sandbox game is actually in beta now and already has a fairly large following doesn't really support the "sandboxes drool and themeparks rule" dogma that the OP and others are trying to spread.SWToR had a very large following. So did Tera. Having a large pre-release following hasn't done either of those games a lot of good. Maybe not, but having a large following basically proves that there is a market for the game. Whether or not the game succeeds is immaterial to this specific thread which argues that there is no large market for sandbox games at all.
How large is the following for the game here in the West? Is there even a way to measure it other than a gut feeling?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by loulaki in your 70+ pages, did you mention ArcheAge Online ?
SHHHHH!!!!! We're not going to talk about that here because the fact that a AAA sandbox game is actually in beta now and already has a fairly large following doesn't really support the "sandboxes drool and themeparks rule" dogma that the OP and others are trying to spread.
SWToR had a very large following. So did Tera. Having a large pre-release following hasn't done either of those games a lot of good.
Maybe not, but having a large following basically proves that there is a market for the game. Whether or not the game succeeds is immaterial to this specific thread which argues that there is no large market for sandbox games at all.
How large is the following for the game here in the West? Is there even a way to measure it other than a gut feeling?
It's a foreign game so I really don't have any exact numbers for you. What I can say is that the industry in the east sure seems to think that there are a lot of people interested in the game, because they cut a $50-$60 million dollar deal to publish the game in China. Obviously, there must be some interest or the publishing company never would have paid them that much.
It's also from an extremely prominent developer, Jake Song, who developed Lineage which is probably the only MMO series that could have been considered "on-par" with WoW in subs.
So yeah, I can't tell you that 1 million people signed up for beta or whatever because I don't know. But all signs are pointing to a large amount of interest in the game.
A person could easily argue 2 things about sandboxes:
1. No sandbox will occupy the entire sandbox crowd (however small or large it is)
2. A decent sandbox cannot actually be made.
/hide
A decent MMO seems impossible for these bungling devs to make.As long as there are millions of suckers that buy everything thats released we are less likely ever to have anything challenging to play ever again.
Originally posted by loulaki in your 70+ pages, did you mention ArcheAge Online ?
SHHHHH!!!!! We're not going to talk about that here because the fact that a AAA sandbox game is actually in beta now and already has a fairly large following doesn't really support the "sandboxes drool and themeparks rule" dogma that the OP and others are trying to spread.
SWToR had a very large following. So did Tera. Having a large pre-release following hasn't done either of those games a lot of good.
Maybe not, but having a large following basically proves that there is a market for the game. Whether or not the game succeeds is immaterial to this specific thread which argues that there is no large market for sandbox games at all.
How large is the following for the game here in the West? Is there even a way to measure it other than a gut feeling?
It's a foreign game so I really don't have any exact numbers for you. What I can say is that the industry in the east sure seems to think that there are a lot of people interested in the game, because they cut a $50-$60 million dollar deal to publish the game in China. Obviously, there must be some interest or the publishing company never would have paid them that much.
It's also from an extremely prominent developer, Jake Song, who developed Lineage which is probably the only MMO series that could have been considered "on-par" with WoW in subs.
So yeah, I can't tell you that 1 million people signed up for beta or whatever because I don't know. But all signs are pointing to a large amount of interest in the game.
Theres no point in trying to reason with those that cant be reasoned with. Can spout facts till your blue in the face but if the other parties dont want to see your point of view what good will it do.
Originally posted by lizardbones How large is the following for the game here in the West? Is there even a way to measure it other than a gut feeling?
Hell, we can't even get accuracy about quantifiables like subscriptions. Since when did that stop a speculation?
Big AAA themepark, big AAA sandbox coming soon. Perhaps soon, for the first time in this message board's history, there will be more mmorpg.com accounts actually playing games than there are complaining about games.
And maybe the one that's the best game might make some decent money.
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.
Originally posted by Creslin321 Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by Creslin321Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by Creslin321Originally posted by loulaki in your 70+ pages, did you mention ArcheAge Online ?
SHHHHH!!!!! We're not going to talk about that here because the fact that a AAA sandbox game is actually in beta now and already has a fairly large following doesn't really support the "sandboxes drool and themeparks rule" dogma that the OP and others are trying to spread.SWToR had a very large following. So did Tera. Having a large pre-release following hasn't done either of those games a lot of good. Maybe not, but having a large following basically proves that there is a market for the game. Whether or not the game succeeds is immaterial to this specific thread which argues that there is no large market for sandbox games at all.How large is the following for the game here in the West? Is there even a way to measure it other than a gut feeling? It's a foreign game so I really don't have any exact numbers for you. What I can say is that the industry in the east sure seems to think that there are a lot of people interested in the game, because they cut a $50-$60 million dollar deal to publish the game in China. Obviously, there must be some interest or the publishing company never would have paid them that much.
It's also from an extremely prominent developer, Jake Song, who developed Lineage which is probably the only MMO series that could have been considered "on-par" with WoW in subs.
So yeah, I can't tell you that 1 million people signed up for beta or whatever because I don't know. But all signs are pointing to a large amount of interest in the game.
That doesn't show anything other than nobody really believes they can release a AAA sandbox MMORPG in the West and succeed. Jake Song isn't releasing the game in the West, he's releasing it in Asia, where it will pay for itself and get released in the West, or it will fail*. He doesn't even have a publisher for the West.
It doesn't make sense that there is an invisible crowd of sandbox MMORPG players large enough to support a AAA sandbox MMORPG. It does make sense that 99% of the crowd lives in Asia though.
It also makes sense that it's possible a game like AA would attract new players to the sandbox MMORPG crowd. It remains to be seen if that's possible though. It remains to be seen if the game will even make it here.
* I think it's going to do just fine.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Quirhid More accurately the assistant would say: "I'm sorry, we have only old widgets because apps have taken over the market. Would you like an app? To which the client would get upset because he wants a widget and he doesn't what has happened in the market.
Don't you just hate customers who don't want to buy what you feel like supplying?
This no longer has anything to do with videogames, but if I was the assistant yes, I'd be a little annoyed that the customer is, for one reason or another, sticking to the old and refusing to use the new. I'm not resposible so why is he complaining to me.
You're still using Product A when the majority of customers have moved on to using Product B. Then you complain how big names in the industry are not making new and improved As. Small manufacturers yes, big names no. Then you claim that if a new and improved Product A was made, there'd be market for it. Sure there would be, but it is nowhere near the size of the market for Product B which means there's a poor justification for a big budget project making Product A.
Now replace Product A with sandbox and Product B with themepark.
Here's a theory:
Themeparks have a shorter lifespan than sandboxes in general (although there are very few sandbox examples to use). Themeparks burn fast but they burn brightly. Thats why they have much better ROI. On top of the sheer size of the market, thats why they are more appealing to investors. And because they burn up so quickly, there's always players for the next themepark so there's room for multiple big names to make AAA games.
Unlike with sandboxes where the potential customers for a new sandbox is small not only because the overall customer base smaller but also because the players commit to the games longer and as such the the potential customers left for each game is smaller.
I wonder if I should draw a I picture to explain what I mean...
EDIT: I did.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Quirhid More accurately the assistant would say: "I'm sorry, we have only old widgets because apps have taken over the market. Would you like an app? To which the client would get upset because he wants a widget and he doesn't what has happened in the market.
Don't you just hate customers who don't want to buy what you feel like supplying?
This no longer has anything to do with videogames, but if I was the assistant yes, I'd be a little annoyed that the customer is, for one reason or another, sticking to the old and refusing to use the new. I'm not resposible so why is he complaining to me.
You're still using Product A when the majority of customers have moved on to using Product B. Then you complain how big names in the industry are not making new and improved As. Small manufacturers yes, big names no. Then you claim that if a new and improved Product A was made, there'd be market for it. Sure there would be, but it is nowhere near the size of the market for Product B which means there's a poor justification for a big budget project making Product A.
Now replace Product A with sandbox and Product B with themepark.
Here's a theory:
Themeparks have a shorter lifespan than sandboxes in general (although there are very few sandbox examples to use). Themeparks burn fast but they burn brightly. Thats why they have much better ROI. On top of the sheer size of the market, thats why they are more appealing to investors. And because they burn up so quickly, there's always players for the next themepark so there's room for multiple big names to make AAA games.
Unlike with sandboxes where the potential customers for a new sandbox is small not only because the overall customer base smaller but also because the players commit to the games longer and as such the the potential customers left for each game is smaller.
I wonder if I should draw a I picture to explain what I mean...
But doesn't your theory make it seem like the best game would be a game that has both the accessibility and attractivenes of a themepark, but also possesses the depth, freedom, and community of a sandbox? It would be able to pull people in with that "sexy" themeparkness, but then get them to stay longer with its more sandboxy design.
This is why I don't get that there are also these arguments from "themepark fans" against sandboxes. It just seems like themepark and sandbox design concepts have so much to offer one another. I mean, I think the PERFECT example of this is the game Morrowwind.
The ES game preceding Morrowwind was Daggerfall. And it was a "pure" sandbox in every since of the word. There was a huge world, you could do stuff in it, the main quest was no only optional but I never even knew it existed. But it remained a niche game because without any direction at all, people just got bored of pillaging procedurally generated dungeons over and over again...
Then comes Morrowwind and Bethesda decided to take their Daggerfall concept and inject things like quests and story into it. All of a sudden you have an awesome free-form sandbox game that also has a lot of story stuff and more linear segments to keep you interested. It was a HUGE hit, and defined the direction of all ES games to come. I think it's the best example of how combining themepark and sandbox features can be a great success.
But doesn't your theory make it seem like the best game would be a game that has both the accessibility and attractivenes of a themepark, but also possesses the depth, freedom, and community of a sandbox? It would be able to pull people in with that "sexy" themeparkness, but then get them to stay longer with its more sandboxy design.
This is why I don't get that there are also these arguments from "themepark fans" against sandboxes. It just seems like themepark and sandbox design concepts have so much to offer one another. I mean, I think the PERFECT example of this is the game Morrowwind.
The ES game preceding Morrowwind was Daggerfall. And it was a "pure" sandbox in every since of the word. There was a huge world, you could do stuff in it, the main quest was no only optional but I never even knew it existed. But it remained a niche game because without any direction at all, people just got bored of pillaging procedurally generated dungeons over and over again...
Then comes Morrowwind and Bethesda decided to take their Daggerfall concept and inject things like quests and story into it. All of a sudden you have an awesome free-form sandbox game that also has a lot of story stuff and more linear segments to keep you interested. It was a HUGE hit, and defined the direction of all ES games to come. I think it's the best example of how combining themepark and sandbox features can be a great success.
Well lets say that all games benefit from accessibility, casual-friendliness and polish, but sandboxes are no deeper than themeparks imo. Not by definition anyhow. Themeparks tend to do few things well and tend to have a lot of depth in those whereas sandboxes tend to do many things but not with similar depth in one single thing. Its not set in stone, but they don't have unlimited resources either.
For example combat in themeparks is commonly a lot deeper but in sandboxes you can do many things besides combat.
Morrowind was definitely great, still probably my favorite ES game, but I'd be hesitant to call it a sandbox or even themepark. If you've seen my other posts, I am hesitant to believe there's a continuum between the two extremes. Still, Morrowind was a good compromise if you want to call it that.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
But doesn't your theory make it seem like the best game would be a game that has both the accessibility and attractivenes of a themepark, but also possesses the depth, freedom, and community of a sandbox? It would be able to pull people in with that "sexy" themeparkness, but then get them to stay longer with its more sandboxy design.
This is why I don't get that there are also these arguments from "themepark fans" against sandboxes. It just seems like themepark and sandbox design concepts have so much to offer one another. I mean, I think the PERFECT example of this is the game Morrowwind.
The ES game preceding Morrowwind was Daggerfall. And it was a "pure" sandbox in every since of the word. There was a huge world, you could do stuff in it, the main quest was no only optional but I never even knew it existed. But it remained a niche game because without any direction at all, people just got bored of pillaging procedurally generated dungeons over and over again...
Then comes Morrowwind and Bethesda decided to take their Daggerfall concept and inject things like quests and story into it. All of a sudden you have an awesome free-form sandbox game that also has a lot of story stuff and more linear segments to keep you interested. It was a HUGE hit, and defined the direction of all ES games to come. I think it's the best example of how combining themepark and sandbox features can be a great success.
Well lets say that all games benefit from accessibility, casual-friendliness and polish, but sandboxes are no deeper than themeparks imo. Not by definition anyhow. Themeparks tend to do few things well and tend to have a lot of depth in those whereas sandboxes tend to do many things but not with similar depth in one single thing. Its not set in stone, but they don't have unlimited resources either.
For example combat in themeparks is commonly a lot deeper but in sandboxes you can do many things besides combat.
Morrowind was definitely great, still probably my favorite ES game, but I'd be hesitant to call it a sandbox or even themepark. If you've seen my other posts, I am hesitant to believe there's a continuum between the two extremes. Still, Morrowind was a good compromise if you want to call it that.
You're right about depth, it was a poor choice of words. Replayability would probably be better.
Anyway, I'm a bit confused why you don't believe there is a continuum between the two extremes. All that means is that there is a lot of space in-between a "pure" sandbox and a "pure" themepark where a game can live. And you basically seem to admit this when you say Morrowwind is a "compromise" between sandbox and themepark...this means that it is somewhere in-between sandbox and themepark which implies a continuum.
Yay I love it when random games get pulled into the mix for no apparent reason. Let's talk about how great Metal Gear Solid and Commander Keen are next.
He implied that going F2P is a failure of sorts and I offered examples why that is not true.
It sure helps if you don't look at the issue through a keyhole.
Wha? You included games in entirely different genres to find something that "supports" your argument, yet had no links, articles or docs that support that point at all. If you claim F2P game X makes more money than P2P game Y, you better darn well post something that at the very least offers a reasonable explanation on the numbers. I think I am simply another victim claimed by this troll thread... shame on me for even poking fun at an argument full of holes.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
Indeed! I'm calling BS on the notion that there is this mythical mass of players that want a sandbox virtual world MMO.
Even if some recent themeparks have failed or will fail in your eyes, I'm quite confident in saying that there will be no major shift towards sandboxes of any sort. People still love themeparks - they just don't like shitty games, thats all.
Sadly your broadbrush approach is a little weak, backed with little if no evidence whatsoever.
So lets see, what people require is open worlds, with structured game systems layered on top a a world with a history/background properly developed.Having what the original games had they need the: Massive World/Longevity/tradeskills/politics & Combat.
End Game is not required as the game should have no end, PvP is not required other than an Arena because it is the World we are investing time in not someone ego. My view of what an MMO needs to be just that is far more than hack slash and end game in two months but sadly I am not sure the OP understands this , from his post he definitley does not.
So people want an open world with lots of varied gameplay , so what people want is close enough to a sandbox but not pure sandbox as anarchy is not the answer. A mix of levels and skill Based activities.... Not much to ask.
________________________________________________________ Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
Sandbox fans could always play The SIms, its pretty much what you all want without the PvP. Archage seems like it going to be like that, just with anime style and giant swords.
Gaming in general is pretty bland without pvp. Also, single player games would be superior to mmorpg games except for the possibility of pvp.
PvP is just not required in MMORPGs ; a small arena is fine for Pvp .
Improved NPC AI in games and the fact that you are playing in a world where you can die and loose easily focuses the mind. I want to play against the world the developers have developed with others when necessary nothing more.
________________________________________________________ Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
Comments
This is so true. Add to this the fact that EvE is a quirky FFA PVP game thats 9 years old. I think the people arguing are arguing for the sake of winning not because they're interested in a resolution to the thread.
Thats the neglect I was talking about. Thats why Eve Online showed a decline in subs last fall. Should we talk about WoW when it had a track record of continual growth (up until 2009)? It doesn't matter. Especially when the size of your customer base is less than 4% of the market leader's.
Or 15% of the second highest (Aion).
Or 25% of the third (SWTOR).
What about Runescape and Dofus? Are either of those sandboxes? Both have more players than Eve does. And then there's the games mentioned that went F2P? Many of them make more money than Eve does. Like someone mentioned sometimes even four times more than what they did when their game was P2P.
Even Team Fortress 2 went F2P they made more money then they had when selling boxes. Battlefield Heroes is another succesful F2P example. Neither game hardly "failed" when the did the transformation. It shows that F2P is a very viable way to fund your game.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Yay I love it when random games get pulled into the mix for no apparent reason. Let's talk about how great Metal Gear Solid and Commander Keen are next.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
Commander Keen was awesome! Jumping around on a pogo stick and fighting wolfs in trainingsuits, pure awesome! And Metal Gear is such a themepark game...or was it sandbox cause i could choose to kill or not to kill hmz......
Anyway this discusion is pointless. I saw someone giving the example that SWG and UO had a huge decline. But that decline wasn't there cause it was sandbox.
SWG decline happened when Sony Online took it over from Lucas Arts. When Sony took it over they made some drastic changes that totally ruined the game. Before you had to work really hard to make it as a jedi. It wasn't a class you could pick from the start and it was really hard to get to be one. Sony took over and boom, they made it a class you could choose from the start. And many more changes where made that made SWG into another game than it used to be, and with that the biggest ammount of players left SWG. This had nothing to do with it being a sandbox game, cause it had a great community when it was still sandbox, its whent down hill when Sony removed more and more of the orriginal gameplay to please the mainstream gamers who didn't want to invest time and energy in actually completing something.
SWG is the biggest example of how a sandbox game can appeal to all, even before Sony took over it was also a great game for people who want a themepark game cause it did offer quests to follow, you just wheren't bound on questing alone to lvl up. Entertainers for example lvled up by playing music or dance in a bar. Based on how many people where actually looking at them. You could play SWG just the way you liked it. You wheren't bound to a faction, you could choose to work for the Imperials, Rebels or just stay neutral. As bounty hunter you could work for both sides, just who ever had the highest bid. But there where many quests to follow for those who wanted to do them. Also RPers and none RPers played on the same servers and no one was hindered by each other. There was a amazing RP scene in that game, even though there where many none rpers. And guess what, the none RPers sure found it nice to see a active RP community making the game much more alive.
Ultima Online had a huge decline when EA made some drastic changes and Lord British left UO. Also the game was old and wanted to please the more mainstream gamer as well. Not because it was sandbox, cause for its time UO was a huge succes. People forget that before WoW the entire MMORPG genre wasn't that populair as it is today. But that doesn't mean those games where a fail and not as good, just the majority of people didn't play MMORPG's back than. WoW succeeded to make the MMORPG genre populair ammon the none MMORPG players. Cause Blizzard was known for making outstanding games and the Warcraft Universe had a huge fanbase so people wanted to play WoW cause it was the new warcraft game. But before WoW it where different times, but for its times UO and SWG where highly populated games untill the publishers began to change the games to much to appeal to a new crowd. The same crowd that has a big mouth now here saying sandbox games don't work and don't have a huge community.
But its funny anyway cause you see it everywhere no mather the genre. Look at the shooters, there its not sandbox vs themepark but rather CoD vs Battlefield...or Corridor shooters vs big maps with vehicle shooters. The CoD players will say that a big map with vehicles don't work, and BF players say that corridor shooters belong to the past. But at the end of the day none is right. Both have a crowd, so do the sandbox and themepark games have. And having million of players is still a huge crowd even though the other camp is more crowded. There hasn't been any good sandbox game in a while cause the publishers insist on themepark games only, yet themepark gamers blame the sandbox gamers for not being with enough people. Thats just stupid, if any big studio would make a MMORPG just as SWG was in its old days than you will see how many people love sandbox games...infact we would finally be rid of sandbox vs themepark again cause it would be a game that pleases both sides.
But this discusion is pointless cause its a discusion about what you like more, apples or orranges. Its a mather of taste and both sides have a huge community, even though there aren't many games for sandbox gamers that doesn't mean the community isn't there. And many arguments here are invalid. As someone said its funny how the sandbox genre has one game that gets compared in numbers to all themepark games together. EVE doesn't have the numbers WoW has....not one game has that is pay to play. Maybe the first month but most mmo's lose a drastic number after the first two months. WoW is unique in what they accomplished, no other MMO can top that for now, not a sandbox and not a themepark. But publishers need to realise this. EVE might not have the numbers WoW has, but it shows that giving people the power to control the game means you have a steady fanbase for years to come. Its better to only have 4 million active players for 8 - 10 years, than to have 10 million players just for 2 months and after that only about a million, no mather what kind of MMO you make.
He implied that going F2P is a failure of sorts and I offered examples why that is not true.
It sure helps if you don't look at the issue through a keyhole.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
in your 70+ pages, did you mention ArcheAge Online ?
A man goes into a shop and asks the assistant if he can buy a widget. The assistant is visibly irritated and snaps
"I'm sick and tired of telling people that we don't stock widgets because there's no demand for them!"
Give me liberty or give me lasers
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Don't you just hate customers who don't want to buy what you feel like supplying?
Give me liberty or give me lasers
SHHHHH!!!!!
We're not going to talk about that here because the fact that a AAA sandbox game is actually in beta now and already has a fairly large following doesn't really support the "sandboxes drool and themeparks rule" dogma that the OP and others are trying to spread.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
We're not going to talk about that here because the fact that a AAA sandbox game is actually in beta now and already has a fairly large following doesn't really support the "sandboxes drool and themeparks rule" dogma that the OP and others are trying to spread.
SWToR had a very large following. So did Tera. Having a large pre-release following hasn't done either of those games a lot of good.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Maybe not, but having a large following basically proves that there is a market for the game. Whether or not the game succeeds is immaterial to this specific thread which argues that there is no large market for sandbox games at all.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
SWToR had a very large following. So did Tera. Having a large pre-release following hasn't done either of those games a lot of good.
Maybe not, but having a large following basically proves that there is a market for the game. Whether or not the game succeeds is immaterial to this specific thread which argues that there is no large market for sandbox games at all.
How large is the following for the game here in the West? Is there even a way to measure it other than a gut feeling?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It's a foreign game so I really don't have any exact numbers for you. What I can say is that the industry in the east sure seems to think that there are a lot of people interested in the game, because they cut a $50-$60 million dollar deal to publish the game in China. Obviously, there must be some interest or the publishing company never would have paid them that much.
It's also from an extremely prominent developer, Jake Song, who developed Lineage which is probably the only MMO series that could have been considered "on-par" with WoW in subs.
So yeah, I can't tell you that 1 million people signed up for beta or whatever because I don't know. But all signs are pointing to a large amount of interest in the game.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
A decent MMO seems impossible for these bungling devs to make.As long as there are millions of suckers that buy everything thats released we are less likely ever to have anything challenging to play ever again.
Theres no point in trying to reason with those that cant be reasoned with. Can spout facts till your blue in the face but if the other parties dont want to see your point of view what good will it do.
Hell, we can't even get accuracy about quantifiables like subscriptions. Since when did that stop a speculation?
Big AAA themepark, big AAA sandbox coming soon. Perhaps soon, for the first time in this message board's history, there will be more mmorpg.com accounts actually playing games than there are complaining about games.
And maybe the one that's the best game might make some decent money.
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.
SWToR had a very large following. So did Tera. Having a large pre-release following hasn't done either of those games a lot of good.
Maybe not, but having a large following basically proves that there is a market for the game. Whether or not the game succeeds is immaterial to this specific thread which argues that there is no large market for sandbox games at all.
How large is the following for the game here in the West? Is there even a way to measure it other than a gut feeling?
It's a foreign game so I really don't have any exact numbers for you. What I can say is that the industry in the east sure seems to think that there are a lot of people interested in the game, because they cut a $50-$60 million dollar deal to publish the game in China. Obviously, there must be some interest or the publishing company never would have paid them that much.
It's also from an extremely prominent developer, Jake Song, who developed Lineage which is probably the only MMO series that could have been considered "on-par" with WoW in subs.
So yeah, I can't tell you that 1 million people signed up for beta or whatever because I don't know. But all signs are pointing to a large amount of interest in the game.
That doesn't show anything other than nobody really believes they can release a AAA sandbox MMORPG in the West and succeed. Jake Song isn't releasing the game in the West, he's releasing it in Asia, where it will pay for itself and get released in the West, or it will fail*. He doesn't even have a publisher for the West.
It doesn't make sense that there is an invisible crowd of sandbox MMORPG players large enough to support a AAA sandbox MMORPG. It does make sense that 99% of the crowd lives in Asia though.
It also makes sense that it's possible a game like AA would attract new players to the sandbox MMORPG crowd. It remains to be seen if that's possible though. It remains to be seen if the game will even make it here.
* I think it's going to do just fine.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This no longer has anything to do with videogames, but if I was the assistant yes, I'd be a little annoyed that the customer is, for one reason or another, sticking to the old and refusing to use the new. I'm not resposible so why is he complaining to me.
You're still using Product A when the majority of customers have moved on to using Product B. Then you complain how big names in the industry are not making new and improved As. Small manufacturers yes, big names no. Then you claim that if a new and improved Product A was made, there'd be market for it. Sure there would be, but it is nowhere near the size of the market for Product B which means there's a poor justification for a big budget project making Product A.
Now replace Product A with sandbox and Product B with themepark.
Here's a theory:
Themeparks have a shorter lifespan than sandboxes in general (although there are very few sandbox examples to use). Themeparks burn fast but they burn brightly. Thats why they have much better ROI. On top of the sheer size of the market, thats why they are more appealing to investors. And because they burn up so quickly, there's always players for the next themepark so there's room for multiple big names to make AAA games.
Unlike with sandboxes where the potential customers for a new sandbox is small not only because the overall customer base smaller but also because the players commit to the games longer and as such the the potential customers left for each game is smaller.
I wonder if I should draw a I picture to explain what I mean...
EDIT: I did.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
But doesn't your theory make it seem like the best game would be a game that has both the accessibility and attractivenes of a themepark, but also possesses the depth, freedom, and community of a sandbox? It would be able to pull people in with that "sexy" themeparkness, but then get them to stay longer with its more sandboxy design.
This is why I don't get that there are also these arguments from "themepark fans" against sandboxes. It just seems like themepark and sandbox design concepts have so much to offer one another. I mean, I think the PERFECT example of this is the game Morrowwind.
The ES game preceding Morrowwind was Daggerfall. And it was a "pure" sandbox in every since of the word. There was a huge world, you could do stuff in it, the main quest was no only optional but I never even knew it existed. But it remained a niche game because without any direction at all, people just got bored of pillaging procedurally generated dungeons over and over again...
Then comes Morrowwind and Bethesda decided to take their Daggerfall concept and inject things like quests and story into it. All of a sudden you have an awesome free-form sandbox game that also has a lot of story stuff and more linear segments to keep you interested. It was a HUGE hit, and defined the direction of all ES games to come. I think it's the best example of how combining themepark and sandbox features can be a great success.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Well lets say that all games benefit from accessibility, casual-friendliness and polish, but sandboxes are no deeper than themeparks imo. Not by definition anyhow. Themeparks tend to do few things well and tend to have a lot of depth in those whereas sandboxes tend to do many things but not with similar depth in one single thing. Its not set in stone, but they don't have unlimited resources either.
For example combat in themeparks is commonly a lot deeper but in sandboxes you can do many things besides combat.
Morrowind was definitely great, still probably my favorite ES game, but I'd be hesitant to call it a sandbox or even themepark. If you've seen my other posts, I am hesitant to believe there's a continuum between the two extremes. Still, Morrowind was a good compromise if you want to call it that.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
You're right about depth, it was a poor choice of words. Replayability would probably be better.
Anyway, I'm a bit confused why you don't believe there is a continuum between the two extremes. All that means is that there is a lot of space in-between a "pure" sandbox and a "pure" themepark where a game can live. And you basically seem to admit this when you say Morrowwind is a "compromise" between sandbox and themepark...this means that it is somewhere in-between sandbox and themepark which implies a continuum.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Wha? You included games in entirely different genres to find something that "supports" your argument, yet had no links, articles or docs that support that point at all. If you claim F2P game X makes more money than P2P game Y, you better darn well post something that at the very least offers a reasonable explanation on the numbers. I think I am simply another victim claimed by this troll thread... shame on me for even poking fun at an argument full of holes.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
Sadly your broadbrush approach is a little weak, backed with little if no evidence whatsoever.
So lets see, what people require is open worlds, with structured game systems layered on top a a world with a history/background properly developed.Having what the original games had they need the: Massive World/Longevity/tradeskills/politics & Combat.
End Game is not required as the game should have no end, PvP is not required other than an Arena because it is the World we are investing time in not someone ego. My view of what an MMO needs to be just that is far more than hack slash and end game in two months but sadly I am not sure the OP understands this , from his post he definitley does not.
So people want an open world with lots of varied gameplay , so what people want is close enough to a sandbox but not pure sandbox as anarchy is not the answer. A mix of levels and skill Based activities.... Not much to ask.
________________________________________________________
Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
PvP is just not required in MMORPGs ; a small arena is fine for Pvp .
Improved NPC AI in games and the fact that you are playing in a world where you can die and loose easily focuses the mind. I want to play against the world the developers have developed with others when necessary nothing more.
________________________________________________________
Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel