I always find it funny. Some little selfimportant brat come in and scream "Sandbox crowds are a myth! You guys do not exist!" Then you read his post history....
Guild Wars... Guild Wars II.... DDO... freebie games. It is just another flipping little noob and froob player that think he, by liking one game, can talk for the whole of MMO community and explain true quality.
pretty much EVERYONE that played MMOS before WoW would love a real good sandbox game. Close to everyone. Problem is, and the only problem is, there has not been relased a "real", "good" or even "sandbox" game since then. So we have nothing to play, we are old and experienced enough not to throw money on bad products and yes.... That might be our fault.
I can explain exactly why we wont, but OP would not understand, its way over his head. Anyway... Your cute, OP. We do not exist. The old, experienced MMO players do not exist, because you did not find them in your precious Guiild Wars.
Keep thinking that.
From a company that is looking to invest $$$, yes, the 'massive sandbox crowd' is a myth.
That doesn't mean you guys don't exists, it means you are the minority since more people buy themepark games.
There is nothing wrong / right about that, it is free-market working as intended.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I always find it funny. Some little selfimportant brat come in and scream "Sandbox crowds are a myth! You guys do not exist!" Then you read his post history....
Guild Wars... Guild Wars II.... DDO... freebie games. It is just another flipping little noob and froob player that think he, by liking one game, can talk for the whole of MMO community and explain true quality.
pretty much EVERYONE that played MMOS before WoW would love a real good sandbox game. Close to everyone. Problem is, and the only problem is, there has not been relased a "real", "good" or even "sandbox" game since then. So we have nothing to play, we are old and experienced enough not to throw money on bad products and yes.... That might be our fault.
I can explain exactly why we wont, but OP would not understand, its way over his head. Anyway... Your cute, OP. We do not exist. The old, experienced MMO players do not exist, because you did not find them in your precious Guiild Wars.
Keep thinking that.
From a company that is looking to invest $$$, yes, the 'massive sandbox crowd' is a myth.
That doesn't mean you guys don't exists, it means you are the minority since more people buy themepark games.
There is nothing wrong / right about that, it is free-market working as intended.
No. To a company that is looking to invest $$$, the 'massive sandbox crowd' is not a myth. Most developers are more interested in throwing $$$ into a WoW clone, getting a quick return and rinse repeating.
I always find it funny. Some little selfimportant brat come in and scream "Sandbox crowds are a myth! You guys do not exist!" Then you read his post history....
Guild Wars... Guild Wars II.... DDO... freebie games. It is just another flipping little noob and froob player that think he, by liking one game, can talk for the whole of MMO community and explain true quality.
pretty much EVERYONE that played MMOS before WoW would love a real good sandbox game. Close to everyone. Problem is, and the only problem is, there has not been relased a "real", "good" or even "sandbox" game since then. So we have nothing to play, we are old and experienced enough not to throw money on bad products and yes.... That might be our fault.
I can explain exactly why we wont, but OP would not understand, its way over his head. Anyway... Your cute, OP. We do not exist. The old, experienced MMO players do not exist, because you did not find them in your precious Guiild Wars.
Keep thinking that.
Let me list the mistakes in your post:
"You guys do not exist" - As others have pointed out I didn't say that. Sandbox crowd is simply smaller than some posters let us believe. That was my argument. Yours is a strawman.
My posting history is hardly irrelevant since where I post does not correlate with what I play.
The argument that I can't make a correct statement about sandbox market because I don't play them myself is a logical fallacy (see ad hominem)
Belittling me or insulting me does not make your view any more right than mine (again ad hominem).
The tone of your post doesn't really raise hopes for a rational, logical explanation why the market is what it is.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
EvE has been around for almost a decade and continues to grow in popularity ArcheAge and World of Darkness are two of the most highly anticipated MMOs on this site Minecraft has a huge following Elder Scrolls and Fable series have sold millions Second Life is still going strong with millions of accounts
Thats just off the top of my head.
EVE I think is the prime example of this.
As sandbox as it gets , it's one of the few mmorpg's that has grown subs over the years and not immediately lost subs after launch.
I'd like to point out that EvE nearly went under in the begining, and that it since have had some pretty decent drops in subscribers. That being said they have been able to pull thrm self together again every time and somehow come out on top. I think this is largely due to not having a publisher or similar "overfiend" and thus they can do things they way they like.
I always find it funny. Some little selfimportant brat come in and scream "Sandbox crowds are a myth! You guys do not exist!" Then you read his post history....
Guild Wars... Guild Wars II.... DDO... freebie games. It is just another flipping little noob and froob player that think he, by liking one game, can talk for the whole of MMO community and explain true quality.
pretty much EVERYONE that played MMOS before WoW would love a real good sandbox game. Close to everyone. Problem is, and the only problem is, there has not been relased a "real", "good" or even "sandbox" game since then. So we have nothing to play, we are old and experienced enough not to throw money on bad products and yes.... That might be our fault.
I can explain exactly why we wont, but OP would not understand, its way over his head. Anyway... Your cute, OP. We do not exist. The old, experienced MMO players do not exist, because you did not find them in your precious Guiild Wars.
Keep thinking that.
hey i love too GW2 ..! that doesnt mean i dont like a sandbox ..!
my secret wish is a sandbox MMO with the artstyle and the combat of GW2, and some parts of the world mechanics (i talk about Dynamic Events) but yes without open PvP all these sounds flat ...
at least on their last update they said that the PvE mechanics will be inside the WvWvW, so i hope in time they will focus on WvWvW maps and they will expand them ..! then it would like closer to a sandbox .
about our existence, i would like to mention that i know a lot of guys who are tired to change games every time, so again check EVE, instead of making a new gamethey keep evolving so someone doesnt lose his beloved character/time... i loved the way they change Anarchy online and Darkfall where they upgrade the graphics engine instead of making new game... yes i haerd a lot of bad criticizing about that, but they didnt check the player base that remains the same and they dont want a new game...
i hope developers will see that the sandbox MMOs need stability and an evolving world
I think there are plenty of sandbox fans out there. Look at the backlash of fans after finding out that The Elder Scrolls Online was abandoning most of the sandbox elements. Look at the backlash that TOR has received from many players. I don't think it neccessarily has to be a sandbox, but players are looking for something different.
There are certainly players who love sandboxes though. There hasn't been a big budget sandbox title since Star Wars Galaxies (with Eve coming out around the same time but being a smaller studio). But if you look at single player games, player shave loved those features for example in the Bethseda RPGs. Say what you will, but minecraft has been a huge success. Part of the draw to GTAs huge success was the sandbox style elements to it.
Too many people get caught up into a sand box vs. theme park war here. There's plenty of players who can enjoy both.
I think there are plenty of sandbox fans out there. Look at the backlash of fans after finding out that The Elder Scrolls Online was abandoning most of the sandbox elements. Look at the backlash that TOR has received from many players. I don't think it neccessarily has to be a sandbox, but players are looking for something different.
There are certainly players who love sandboxes though. There hasn't been a big budget sandbox title since Star Wars Galaxies (with Eve coming out around the same time but being a smaller studio). But if you look at single player games, player shave loved those features for example in the Bethseda RPGs. Say what you will, but minecraft has been a huge success. Part of the draw to GTAs huge success was the sandbox style elements to it.
Too many people get caught up into a sand box vs. theme park war here. There's plenty of players who can enjoy both.
There are plenty of 'sandbox' fans but there are not many 'sandbox MMO buyers'.
That's just fact.
The original poster and the subsequent discussion is still around 'do they exists' and so far, we have no evidence that they do.
Plenty of people say 'they will buy' but not many actually do
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I always find it funny. Some little selfimportant brat come in and scream "Sandbox crowds are a myth! You guys do not exist!" Then you read his post history....
Guild Wars... Guild Wars II.... DDO... freebie games. It is just another flipping little noob and froob player that think he, by liking one game, can talk for the whole of MMO community and explain true quality.
pretty much EVERYONE that played MMOS before WoW would love a real good sandbox game. Close to everyone. Problem is, and the only problem is, there has not been relased a "real", "good" or even "sandbox" game since then. So we have nothing to play, we are old and experienced enough not to throw money on bad products and yes.... That might be our fault.
I can explain exactly why we wont, but OP would not understand, its way over his head. Anyway... Your cute, OP. We do not exist. The old, experienced MMO players do not exist, because you did not find them in your precious Guiild Wars.
Keep thinking that.
Hm .. you have a reading comprehension problem?
The OP did not say you do not exist. He said your guys are not "massive" and so far i have not seen any evidence that there is a massive sandbox market out there. A few guys ranting on a internet forum do NOT make a massive market.
The funny thing is that I'm about 99% sure that this whole argument just comes down to everyone's perception of what sandbox means.
I'm guessing that you and Quirhid probably perceive sandbox to mean: Hardcore, FFA PvP, full loot, little to no developer content, huge barren world. Basically a game in the tradition of UO, Eve, or Darkfall. And if you define sandbox like this, I would agree...there is no massive crowd. FFA PvP and full loot alone is enough to chase tons of people away. And I think I know this because I remember all the complaints about it when everyone was playing pre-Trammel UO.
I, on the other hand, perceive sandbox as the "classic" definition of the term as seen on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_game). Basically any unguided experience where there is a big world and the player gets to decide how they want to play. This includes games like Elder Scrolls and GTA which currently have a MASSIVE following, so clearly, by my definition, sandbox games have a massive following.
I think there are plenty of sandbox fans out there. Look at the backlash of fans after finding out that The Elder Scrolls Online was abandoning most of the sandbox elements. Look at the backlash that TOR has received from many players. I don't think it neccessarily has to be a sandbox, but players are looking for something different.
There are certainly players who love sandboxes though. There hasn't been a big budget sandbox title since Star Wars Galaxies (with Eve coming out around the same time but being a smaller studio). But if you look at single player games, player shave loved those features for example in the Bethseda RPGs. Say what you will, but minecraft has been a huge success. Part of the draw to GTAs huge success was the sandbox style elements to it.
Too many people get caught up into a sand box vs. theme park war here. There's plenty of players who can enjoy both.
There are plenty of 'sandbox' fans but there are not many 'sandbox MMO buyers'.
That's just fact.
The original poster and the subsequent discussion is still around 'do they exists' and so far, we have no evidence that they do.
Plenty of people say 'they will buy' but not many actually do
That argument would make sense if there was actually something to buy. I would ask you to name one sandbox MMORPG that came out in the last 6 years that had all the polish and budget of a AAA themepark game like Rift or SWTOR, but I already know that you can't, because I would have known about it if such a game existed.
So I mean, you can't really say "the market has spoken" because there is nothing to speak about. Anyway, I think Archeage will be very telling. It looks to be a very polished game with heavy sandbox concepts. Hopefully its sales will tell us how much interest there is in sandbox games.
Originally posted by Creslin321 Originally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by HarafnirI always find it funny. Some little selfimportant brat come in and scream "Sandbox crowds are a myth! You guys do not exist!" Then you read his post history....Guild Wars... Guild Wars II.... DDO... freebie games. It is just another flipping little noob and froob player that think he, by liking one game, can talk for the whole of MMO community and explain true quality.pretty much EVERYONE that played MMOS before WoW would love a real good sandbox game. Close to everyone. Problem is, and the only problem is, there has not been relased a "real", "good" or even "sandbox" game since then. So we have nothing to play, we are old and experienced enough not to throw money on bad products and yes.... That might be our fault.I can explain exactly why we wont, but OP would not understand, its way over his head. Anyway... Your cute, OP. We do not exist. The old, experienced MMO players do not exist, because you did not find them in your precious Guiild Wars.Keep thinking that.
Hm .. you have a reading comprehension problem?The OP did not say you do not exist. He said your guys are not "massive" and so far i have not seen any evidence that there is a massive sandbox market out there. A few guys ranting on a internet forum do NOT make a massive market. The funny thing is that I'm about 99% sure that this whole argument just comes down to everyone's perception of what sandbox means.
I'm guessing that you and Quirhid probably perceive sandbox to mean: Hardcore, FFA PvP, full loot, little to no developer content, huge barren world. Basically a game in the tradition of UO, Eve, or Darkfall. And if you define sandbox like this, I would agree...there is no massive crowd. FFA PvP and full loot alone is enough to chase tons of people away. And I think I know this because I remember all the complaints about it when everyone was playing pre-Trammel UO.
I, on the other hand, perceive sandbox as the "classic" definition of the term as seen on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_game). Basically any unguided experience where there is a big world and the player gets to decide how they want to play. This includes games like Elder Scrolls and GTA which currently have a MASSIVE following, so clearly, by my definition, sandbox games have a massive following.
That doesn't seem to translate into a massive sandbox MMORPG following though. If as many people wanted to play sandbox MMORPG as pay to play sandbox games in general, it seems like it would dwarf any other kind of MMORPG. However, that doesn't seem to be the case.
That's the observation bit. Here's the make up reasons with no sources and no proof bit. Those sandbox gamers couldn't play the way they want if there was a large population on the server. The guy driving through windows to rob places would get shot by another player playing a cop. Or the guy driving through windows to rob places wouldn't be able to drive through the player who was playing a shopkeeper's window because the game doesn't allow that. You can't be totally free in a game if everyone else is totally free as well. The feel of the game breaks down and it moves away from being that sandbox where you can do anything you want, any way you want. That's what I think anyway.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by lizardbones That doesn't seem to translate into a massive sandbox MMORPG following though. If as many people wanted to play sandbox MMORPG as pay to play sandbox games in general, it seems like it would dwarf any other kind of MMORPG. However, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Which, as has often been stated, may be more a result of the quality of titles than any particular expression of preference.
The entire thread just keeps circling back to the same answer. It's impossible to separate cause and effect, despite the op's (and dozens of players) attempts to. Are sandboxes less popular because of player preferences, or because of poor production of good titles?
Some of both, maybe? A complex question that lacks a simple answer.
Fortunately, I don't even have to make a choice--except deciding to buy a new game, or not.
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.
If cities were designed 'closer' and less car dependent (thus far less parking spaces) and it was such that a person could ride a bike to get what they need, work and for fun within lets say 5 miles in all directions I think a LOT of people would like it.
However,using your logic, it doesnt exist many places in the US and only a few cities around have it which suggests people wouldnt like it.
I dont believe the latter.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If cities were designed 'closer' and less car dependent (thus far less parking spaces) and it was such that a person could ride a bike to get what they need, work and for fun within lets say 5 miles in all directions I think a LOT of people would like it.
To me, it suggests that people's motivations may not be readily apparent.
(And suggests that "dream jobs < 5 miles away" is often excluded by simple Distribution...heh.)
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 Icewhite Originally posted by lizardbonesThat doesn't seem to translate into a massive sandbox MMORPG following though. If as many people wanted to play sandbox MMORPG as pay to play sandbox games in general, it seems like it would dwarf any other kind of MMORPG. However, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Which, as has often been stated, may be more a result of the quality of titles than any particular expression of preference.
The entire thread just keeps circling back to the same answer. It's impossible to separate cause and effect, despite the op's (and dozens of players) attempts to. Are sandboxes less popular because of player preferences, or because of poor production of good titles?
Some of both, maybe? A complex question that lacks a simple answer.
Fortunately, I don't even have to make a choice--except deciding to buy a new game, or not.
I have to base my response to this on my personal experience and feedback from the people I game with, but my second paragraph covered one of the reasons I don't think the existence of sandbox games translates into a large sandbox MMORPG audience.
Single player sandbox games work because they are single player. Making them massively multi-player would make the games unattractive to the overall single player sandbox audience.
The same can be said about the multi-player sandbox games. They're attractive because the players themselves can run their own servers and keep control of their own games. They have the added bonus of playing with their friends versus random strangers. They get the best of both worlds.
But again, that's just what I think. I don't see any direct proof of a massive sandbox MMORPG audience. There's no direct proof that it doesn't exist either. In general though, if something is impossible to quantify, especially something that's been quantified for years (specific gamer audiences), then it's likely that it just doesn't exist or that it's so small, measuring it isn't worth it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by SEANMCAD TO OP:If cities were designed 'closer' and less car dependent (thus far less parking spaces) and it was such that a person could ride a bike to get what they need, work and for fun within lets say 5 miles in all directions I think a LOT of people would like it.However,using your logic, it doesnt exist many places in the US and only a few cities around have it which suggests people wouldnt like it.I dont believe the latter.
They've done studies on this. Cities spread out because of cars, cars didn't become necessary because cities spread out.
Bicycles are less popular than cars, not because of the distances needed to travel, but because they don't have covered tops, they don't have heating or air conditioning and they require people to supply the power versus the cars supplying power. Travel distance is certainly a factor, but if cities magically got closer together, bicycles wouldn't suddenly become massively popular. Put all the cities underground in a climate controlled setting and bicycles might become more popular, but I bet electric cars would still be more popular.
I have no idea what this adds to the discussion. I think it's a good example of why MMORPG.com posters just shouldn't make analogies.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If cities were designed 'closer' and less car dependent (thus far less parking spaces) and it was such that a person could ride a bike to get what they need, work and for fun within lets say 5 miles in all directions I think a LOT of people would like it.
To me, it suggests that people's motivations may not be readily apparent.
(And suggests that "dream jobs < 5 miles away" is often excluded by simple Distribution...heh.)
I should have made it simpler.
Just because me and my friends are not dating hot women doesnt mean we dont want to.
In most things there is SUPPLY and demand. Not just one or the other.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If cities were designed 'closer' and less car dependent (thus far less parking spaces) and it was such that a person could ride a bike to get what they need, work and for fun within lets say 5 miles in all directions I think a LOT of people would like it.
However,using your logic, it doesnt exist many places in the US and only a few cities around have it which suggests people wouldnt like it.
I dont believe the latter.
They've done studies on this. Cities spread out because of cars, cars didn't become necessary because cities spread out.
Bicycles are less popular than cars, not because of the distances needed to travel, but because they don't have covered tops, they don't have heating or air conditioning and they require people to supply the power versus the cars supplying power. Travel distance is certainly a factor, but if cities magically got closer together, bicycles wouldn't suddenly become massively popular. Put all the cities underground in a climate controlled setting and bicycles might become more popular, but I bet electric cars would still be more popular.
I have no idea what this adds to the discussion. I think it's a good example of why MMORPG.com posters just shouldn't make analogies.
The example I should have used to make my point is this.
Most of my friends are not dating hot women but that doesnt mean we dont want to.
The assumption of the OP is that because there isnt many sandboxes means that people dont want it. The supply chain in all things is much more controlled then people think.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by SEANMCADTO OP: If cities were designed 'closer' and less car dependent (thus far less parking spaces) and it was such that a person could ride a bike to get what they need, work and for fun within lets say 5 miles in all directions I think a LOT of people would like it.However,using your logic, it doesnt exist many places in the US and only a few cities around have it which suggests people wouldnt like it.I dont believe the latter.
They've done studies on this. Cities spread out because of cars, cars didn't become necessary because cities spread out. Bicycles are less popular than cars, not because of the distances needed to travel, but because they don't have covered tops, they don't have heating or air conditioning and they require people to supply the power versus the cars supplying power. Travel distance is certainly a factor, but if cities magically got closer together, bicycles wouldn't suddenly become massively popular. Put all the cities underground in a climate controlled setting and bicycles might become more popular, but I bet electric cars would still be more popular. I have no idea what this adds to the discussion. I think it's a good example of why MMORPG.com posters just shouldn't make analogies. The example I should have used to make my point is this.
Most of my friends are not dating hot women but that doesnt mean we dont want to.
The assumption of the OP is that because there isnt many sandboxes means that people dont want it. The supply chain in all things is much more controlled then people think.
That would imply that sandboxes exist, they're just not given to the people who want them. Or that the people who could write sandbox MMORPG think sandbox fans are ugly.
Believe it or not, I do get what you're saying. But have you not noticed that the analogies never clear anything up? No one ever says, "Ah Ha! Now I get it! Thank you for that analogy that made your statements clear!" It just starts an argument about the analogy itself.
The supply side of things is controlled. You have to wonder, if there is such a huge market for sandbox MMORPG, why isn't one being produced? It's not that developers don't like sandbox MMORPG players and they certainly don't care if they are ugly or not. They don't believe they can make enough money to make one work. The alternative thought is that they think they could make it work, but they could make more money with a theme park or hybrid game. Terms can get thrown around, but the bottom line is, "How many people will pay for my product?" If that number is too small, the project doesn't get funded.
That is not proof that the audience is tiny, but it's also not proof that it's huge. I think the only provable thing that can be said is that the audience definitely exists, we just don't know how big it is. If a sandbox game is going to come into existence, especially a AAA sandbox game, proof of the audience's size and existence needs to happen.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by SEANMCADTO OP: If cities were designed 'closer' and less car dependent (thus far less parking spaces) and it was such that a person could ride a bike to get what they need, work and for fun within lets say 5 miles in all directions I think a LOT of people would like it.However,using your logic, it doesnt exist many places in the US and only a few cities around have it which suggests people wouldnt like it.I dont believe the latter.
They've done studies on this. Cities spread out because of cars, cars didn't become necessary because cities spread out. Bicycles are less popular than cars, not because of the distances needed to travel, but because they don't have covered tops, they don't have heating or air conditioning and they require people to supply the power versus the cars supplying power. Travel distance is certainly a factor, but if cities magically got closer together, bicycles wouldn't suddenly become massively popular. Put all the cities underground in a climate controlled setting and bicycles might become more popular, but I bet electric cars would still be more popular. I have no idea what this adds to the discussion. I think it's a good example of why MMORPG.com posters just shouldn't make analogies.
The example I should have used to make my point is this.
Most of my friends are not dating hot women but that doesnt mean we dont want to.
The assumption of the OP is that because there isnt many sandboxes means that people dont want it. The supply chain in all things is much more controlled then people think.
That would imply that sandboxes exist, they're just not given to the people who want them. Or that the people who could write sandbox MMORPG think sandbox fans are ugly.
Believe it or not, I do get what you're saying. But have you not noticed that the analogies never clear anything up? No one ever says, "Ah Ha! Now I get it! Thank you for that analogy that made your statements clear!" It just starts an argument about the analogy itself.
The supply side of things is controlled. You have to wonder, if there is such a huge market for sandbox MMORPG, why isn't one being produced? It's not that developers don't like sandbox MMORPG players and they certainly don't care if they are ugly or not. They don't believe they can make enough money to make one work. The alternative thought is that they think they could make it work, but they could make more money with a theme park or hybrid game. Terms can get thrown around, but the bottom line is, "How many people will pay for my product?" If that number is too small, the project doesn't get funded.
That is not proof that the audience is tiny, but it's also not proof that it's huge. I think the only provable thing that can be said is that the audience definitely exists, we just don't know how big it is. If a sandbox game is going to come into existence, especially a AAA sandbox game, proof of the audience's size and existence needs to happen.
I am not trying to suggest that sandboxes ARE desired by the majority. I am just trying to suggest that because there arent many isnt evidence that people dont like them. we are both talking in extreemes.
Why is reality TV so popular? because its cheap to make and it attracts a certian demographic that is more suspectical to advertising then other demographics.
Could it be that the reasons sandboxes dont exist are any or all of the following reasons.
1. youth and the less intelligent are targeted because of a stradegy called 'product loyality'.
2. its a prooven formula that appears to be working.
3. the stradegy at the moment is to bring in new gamers and new gamers would be overwhelmed with too many game mechanic options.
4. templates for everything would have to be re-architected and that is expensive.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Single player sandbox games work because they are single player. Making them massively multi-player would make the games unattractive to the overall single player sandbox audience.
I can attest to that. I know people who play primarily multiplayer games and people who play primarily single player games - of the same genre ofc. Clearly there are some unattractive changes included in the transformation for both types.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by SEANMCADOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by SEANMCADTO OP: If cities were designed 'closer' and less car dependent (thus far less parking spaces) and it was such that a person could ride a bike to get what they need, work and for fun within lets say 5 miles in all directions I think a LOT of people would like it.However,using your logic, it doesnt exist many places in the US and only a few cities around have it which suggests people wouldnt like it.I dont believe the latter.
They've done studies on this. Cities spread out because of cars, cars didn't become necessary because cities spread out. Bicycles are less popular than cars, not because of the distances needed to travel, but because they don't have covered tops, they don't have heating or air conditioning and they require people to supply the power versus the cars supplying power. Travel distance is certainly a factor, but if cities magically got closer together, bicycles wouldn't suddenly become massively popular. Put all the cities underground in a climate controlled setting and bicycles might become more popular, but I bet electric cars would still be more popular. I have no idea what this adds to the discussion. I think it's a good example of why MMORPG.com posters just shouldn't make analogies. The example I should have used to make my point is this. Most of my friends are not dating hot women but that doesnt mean we dont want to.The assumption of the OP is that because there isnt many sandboxes means that people dont want it. The supply chain in all things is much more controlled then people think. That would imply that sandboxes exist, they're just not given to the people who want them. Or that the people who could write sandbox MMORPG think sandbox fans are ugly. Believe it or not, I do get what you're saying. But have you not noticed that the analogies never clear anything up? No one ever says, "Ah Ha! Now I get it! Thank you for that analogy that made your statements clear!" It just starts an argument about the analogy itself. The supply side of things is controlled. You have to wonder, if there is such a huge market for sandbox MMORPG, why isn't one being produced? It's not that developers don't like sandbox MMORPG players and they certainly don't care if they are ugly or not. They don't believe they can make enough money to make one work. The alternative thought is that they think they could make it work, but they could make more money with a theme park or hybrid game. Terms can get thrown around, but the bottom line is, "How many people will pay for my product?" If that number is too small, the project doesn't get funded. That is not proof that the audience is tiny, but it's also not proof that it's huge. I think the only provable thing that can be said is that the audience definitely exists, we just don't know how big it is. If a sandbox game is going to come into existence, especially a AAA sandbox game, proof of the audience's size and existence needs to happen. I am not trying to suggest that sandboxes ARE desired by the majority. I am just trying to suggest that because there arent many isnt evidence that people dont like them. we are both talking in extreemes.
Why is reality TV so popular? because its cheap to make and it attracts a certian demographic that is more suspectical to advertising then other demographics.
Could it be that the reasons sandboxes dont exist are any or all of the following reasons.
1. youth and the less intelligent are targeted because of a stradegy called 'product loyality'.
2. its a prooven formula that appears to be working.
3. the stradegy at the moment is to bring in new gamers and new gamers would be overwhelmed with too many game mechanic options.
4. templates for everything would have to be re-architected and that is expensive.
I think #2 is the most likely one. Developers are going to branch out and pull in sandbox features, but they're not going to completely abandon something that they know works.
I don't think number 4 has any impact or it is just part of #2. If we were talking about FPS or single player RPG, maybe, but with MMORPG developers start from scratch with each game. They can work with known features, but implementing them is new, every time. Existing templates don't matter because they can't really be used. There is not enterprise level MMORPG chat server that can be purchased. There's no MMORPG Network Stack that can be used because the graphic assets being transferred and the information being transferred is unique to each game.
Not sure about #1. I think some Eve players would say they have more product loyalty than anyone.
I don't think #3 would have too much impact either. Getting new players involved in the game has to do with how well the designers and developers do their job and not whether a game is theme park or sandbox.
If I was going to argue anything, I would argue that while people like Sandbox Games, they do not like Sandbox MMORPG as much as Sandbox Games and they don't like Sandbox MMORPG as much as they like Theme Park MMORPG. I would also argue that a game that combined elements of Theme Park MMORPG such as guided progression and guided story lines with Sandbox Features such as liberal crafting, land ownership and world modification would do better than either a fully Theme Park MMORPG or a fully Sandbox MMORPG.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think #2 is the most likely one. Developers are going to branch out and pull in sandbox features, but they're not going to completely abandon something that they know works.
I don't think number 4 has any impact or it is just part of #2. If we were talking about FPS or single player RPG, maybe, but with MMORPG developers start from scratch with each game. They can work with known features, but implementing them is new, every time. Existing templates don't matter because they can't really be used. There is not enterprise level MMORPG chat server that can be purchased. There's no MMORPG Network Stack that can be used because the graphic assets being transferred and the information being transferred is unique to each game.
Not sure about #1. I think some Eve players would say they have more product loyalty than anyone.
I don't think #3 would have too much impact either. Getting new players involved in the game has to do with how well the designers and developers do their job and not whether a game is theme park or sandbox.
If I was going to argue anything, I would argue that while people like Sandbox Games, they do not like Sandbox MMORPG as much as Sandbox Games and they don't like Sandbox MMORPG as much as they like Theme Park MMORPG. I would also argue that a game that combined elements of Theme Park MMORPG such as guided progression and guided story lines with Sandbox Features such as liberal crafting, land ownership and world modification would do better than either a fully Theme Park MMORPG or a fully Sandbox MMORPG.
just to put product loyality into more perspective. The average age of a TV viewer is around 50+ but the average target audidence is under 20. Reason is they know for a fact now that product loyality at a young age works. There is a reason some people always drink Coke, or Pepsi . Once
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Originally posted by HarafnirI always find it funny. Some little selfimportant brat come in and scream "Sandbox crowds are a myth! You guys do not exist!" Then you read his post history....Guild Wars... Guild Wars II.... DDO... freebie games. It is just another flipping little noob and froob player that think he, by liking one game, can talk for the whole of MMO community and explain true quality.pretty much EVERYONE that played MMOS before WoW would love a real good sandbox game. Close to everyone. Problem is, and the only problem is, there has not been relased a "real", "good" or even "sandbox" game since then. So we have nothing to play, we are old and experienced enough not to throw money on bad products and yes.... That might be our fault.I can explain exactly why we wont, but OP would not understand, its way over his head. Anyway... Your cute, OP. We do not exist. The old, experienced MMO players do not exist, because you did not find them in your precious Guiild Wars.Keep thinking that.
Hm .. you have a reading comprehension problem?The OP did not say you do not exist. He said your guys are not "massive" and so far i have not seen any evidence that there is a massive sandbox market out there. A few guys ranting on a internet forum do NOT make a massive market.
The funny thing is that I'm about 99% sure that this whole argument just comes down to everyone's perception of what sandbox means.
I'm guessing that you and Quirhid probably perceive sandbox to mean: Hardcore, FFA PvP, full loot, little to no developer content, huge barren world. Basically a game in the tradition of UO, Eve, or Darkfall. And if you define sandbox like this, I would agree...there is no massive crowd. FFA PvP and full loot alone is enough to chase tons of people away. And I think I know this because I remember all the complaints about it when everyone was playing pre-Trammel UO.
I, on the other hand, perceive sandbox as the "classic" definition of the term as seen on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_game). Basically any unguided experience where there is a big world and the player gets to decide how they want to play. This includes games like Elder Scrolls and GTA which currently have a MASSIVE following, so clearly, by my definition, sandbox games have a massive following.
That doesn't seem to translate into a massive sandbox MMORPG following though. If as many people wanted to play sandbox MMORPG as pay to play sandbox games in general, it seems like it would dwarf any other kind of MMORPG. However, that doesn't seem to be the case.
That's the observation bit. Here's the make up reasons with no sources and no proof bit. Those sandbox gamers couldn't play the way they want if there was a large population on the server. The guy driving through windows to rob places would get shot by another player playing a cop. Or the guy driving through windows to rob places wouldn't be able to drive through the player who was playing a shopkeeper's window because the game doesn't allow that. You can't be totally free in a game if everyone else is totally free as well. The feel of the game breaks down and it moves away from being that sandbox where you can do anything you want, any way you want. That's what I think anyway.
Your example is just falling back on the old FFA PvP argument again. We all know that FFA PvP is not attractive to everyone, in fact, it's probably only attractive to a minority. And yes, FFA PvP can definitely spoil single player esque sandbox fun.
But...sandboxes do NOT have to have FFA PvP. It isn't a requirement.
I really don't see why robbing a bank in a game like GTA would not be even more fun if you could do it with your friends. And you could have one guy be the getaway driver, one guy watch the hostages, and the other go into the vault. Just make it so it's not FFA PvP, and all of a sudden you can have the same "SP sandbox fun," but now you can do it with your friends.
Basically, the only difference I see between sandbox and themepark is that in a sandbox you decide what to do from a very large list of options and just about all options are open to you at any one time, and in a themepark, you decide what to do from a very small list options, and typically a smaller amount of options are available to you at any one point in time.
I mean, look at WoW. People have argue that it is a "sandbox" because you can:
Do dungeons, Quest, BG PvP, Craft, or Raid
But the reality is that these options boil down to a relatively small amount of things to do. You can quest...but only in the zone appropriate for your level. You can do dungeons...but only the ones approrpriate for you level, you can craft, but you only see a benefit from stuff appropriate for your level.
See what I'm getting at here? The game is directed by your level, your level decides what you can do, and the entire game world is never really open to you at any one point. Even at max level, you can go to low level areas, but they hold 0 appeal for you. Now at high level they have made it a bit more sandboxy by making heroic modes for the lower dungeons so that more is open to you...and I think this is a large part of why WoW has been successful at retaining subs.
Now contrast this with an actual sandbox game like Skyrim though. At first glance, it may seem like it is very similar to WoW. Because, in exception for the multiplayer stuff, you can do very similiar things. Quest, dungeons, craft, etc...
But the difference here isn't in what you can do, it's in how it's implemented. In Skyrim you can do just about any quest in the game at any time. Nearly the entire world is open to you at just about any point in the game. This is the difference. A themepark directs your experience, a sandbox doesn't. Or at least, those are the two extremes.
The more directed an experience is, the more themeparky it is. The more undirected it is, the more sandboxy it is. And I really don't see why a more undirected MMO wouldn't be popular. Do people really need that huge chain of quest nodes to play? Are we really too inept to just explore and find stuff to do? I really don't think so...and I think the popularity of SP sandboxes basically proves this.
Your example is just falling back on the old FFA PvP argument again. We all know that FFA PvP is not attractive to everyone, in fact, it's probably only attractive to a minority. And yes, FFA PvP can definitely spoil single player esque sandbox fun.
But...sandboxes do NOT have to have FFA PvP. It isn't a requirement.
I really don't see why robbing a bank in a game like GTA would not be even more fun if you could do it with your friends. And you could have one guy be the getaway driver, one guy watch the hostages, and the other go into the vault. Just make it so it's not FFA PvP, and all of a sudden you can have the same "SP sandbox fun," but now you can do it with your friends.
Basically, the only difference I see between sandbox and themepark is that in a sandbox you decide what to do from a very large list of options and just about all options are open to you at any one time, and in a themepark, you decide what to do from a very small list options, and typically a smaller amount of options are available to you at any one point in time.
I mean, look at WoW. People have argue that it is a "sandbox" because you can:
Do dungeons, Quest, BG PvP, Craft, or Raid
But the reality is that these options boil down to a relatively small amount of things to do. You can quest...but only in the zone appropriate for your level. You can do dungeons...but only the ones approrpriate for you level, you can craft, but you only see a benefit from stuff appropriate for your level.
See what I'm getting at here? The game is directed by your level, your level decides what you can do, and the entire game world is never really open to you at any one point. Even at max level, you can go to low level areas, but they hold 0 appeal for you. Now at high level they have made it a bit more sandboxy by making heroic modes for the lower dungeons so that more is open to you...and I think this is a large part of why WoW has been successful at retaining subs.
Now contrast this with an actual sandbox game like Skyrim though. At first glance, it may seem like it is very similar to WoW. Because, in exception for the multiplayer stuff, you can do very similiar things. Quest, dungeons, craft, etc...
But the difference here isn't in what you can do, it's in how it's implemented. In Skyrim you can do just about any quest in the game at any time. Nearly the entire world is open to you at just about any point in the game. This is the difference. A themepark directs your experience, a sandbox doesn't. Or at least, those are the two extremes.
The more directed an experience is, the more themeparky it is. The more undirected it is, the more sandboxy it is. And I really don't see why a more undirected MMO wouldn't be popular. Do people really need that huge chain of quest nodes to play? Are we really too inept to just explore and find stuff to do? I really don't think so...and I think the popularity of SP sandboxes basically proves this.
in addition to 'product loyality' which is something I brought up with someone else there is also a rule in psychology that says as soon as you go above expectation, the benchmark for expecation quickly increases. This is why I sometimes think my cellphone is a piece of crap because it doesnt load up a web browser fast. I forget that it wasnt even realistically possible not that long ago.
So from a marketing PR standpoint you want to keep the level of expectation and variety as low as possible even though it might create a spike of new consumers you will be forever required to match that.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The funny thing is that I'm about 99% sure that this whole argument just comes down to everyone's perception of what sandbox means.
Or maybe it's the other Null Expression in the statement syntax, people are tripping on what "massive" means?
1% of MMO gamers is still a pretty nasty-big number, expressable in scientific notation.
1% of the gaming market, on the other hand, is probably considered pretty small beans by most gaming studios. Others, like those tiny indie studios, would happily kill your whole family for that 1% of the market.
"Not massive enough/Plenty massive" is just a judgement call, made by people who have no real stake in the outcome of the bet. Who gets to choose?
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.
Comments
From a company that is looking to invest $$$, yes, the 'massive sandbox crowd' is a myth.
That doesn't mean you guys don't exists, it means you are the minority since more people buy themepark games.
There is nothing wrong / right about that, it is free-market working as intended.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
No. To a company that is looking to invest $$$, the 'massive sandbox crowd' is not a myth. Most developers are more interested in throwing $$$ into a WoW clone, getting a quick return and rinse repeating.
Let me list the mistakes in your post:
The tone of your post doesn't really raise hopes for a rational, logical explanation why the market is what it is.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I'd like to point out that EvE nearly went under in the begining, and that it since have had some pretty decent drops in subscribers. That being said they have been able to pull thrm self together again every time and somehow come out on top. I think this is largely due to not having a publisher or similar "overfiend" and thus they can do things they way they like.
This have been a good conversation
hey i love too GW2 ..! that doesnt mean i dont like a sandbox ..!
my secret wish is a sandbox MMO with the artstyle and the combat of GW2, and some parts of the world mechanics (i talk about Dynamic Events) but yes without open PvP all these sounds flat ...
at least on their last update they said that the PvE mechanics will be inside the WvWvW, so i hope in time they will focus on WvWvW maps and they will expand them ..! then it would like closer to a sandbox .
about our existence, i would like to mention that i know a lot of guys who are tired to change games every time, so again check EVE, instead of making a new gamethey keep evolving so someone doesnt lose his beloved character/time... i loved the way they change Anarchy online and Darkfall where they upgrade the graphics engine instead of making new game... yes i haerd a lot of bad criticizing about that, but they didnt check the player base that remains the same and they dont want a new game...
i hope developers will see that the sandbox MMOs need stability and an evolving world
I think there are plenty of sandbox fans out there. Look at the backlash of fans after finding out that The Elder Scrolls Online was abandoning most of the sandbox elements. Look at the backlash that TOR has received from many players. I don't think it neccessarily has to be a sandbox, but players are looking for something different.
There are certainly players who love sandboxes though. There hasn't been a big budget sandbox title since Star Wars Galaxies (with Eve coming out around the same time but being a smaller studio). But if you look at single player games, player shave loved those features for example in the Bethseda RPGs. Say what you will, but minecraft has been a huge success. Part of the draw to GTAs huge success was the sandbox style elements to it.
Too many people get caught up into a sand box vs. theme park war here. There's plenty of players who can enjoy both.
https://www.therepopulation.com - Sci Fi Sandbox.
There are plenty of 'sandbox' fans but there are not many 'sandbox MMO buyers'.
That's just fact.
The original poster and the subsequent discussion is still around 'do they exists' and so far, we have no evidence that they do.
Plenty of people say 'they will buy' but not many actually do
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
The funny thing is that I'm about 99% sure that this whole argument just comes down to everyone's perception of what sandbox means.
I'm guessing that you and Quirhid probably perceive sandbox to mean: Hardcore, FFA PvP, full loot, little to no developer content, huge barren world. Basically a game in the tradition of UO, Eve, or Darkfall. And if you define sandbox like this, I would agree...there is no massive crowd. FFA PvP and full loot alone is enough to chase tons of people away. And I think I know this because I remember all the complaints about it when everyone was playing pre-Trammel UO.
I, on the other hand, perceive sandbox as the "classic" definition of the term as seen on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_game). Basically any unguided experience where there is a big world and the player gets to decide how they want to play. This includes games like Elder Scrolls and GTA which currently have a MASSIVE following, so clearly, by my definition, sandbox games have a massive following.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
That argument would make sense if there was actually something to buy. I would ask you to name one sandbox MMORPG that came out in the last 6 years that had all the polish and budget of a AAA themepark game like Rift or SWTOR, but I already know that you can't, because I would have known about it if such a game existed.
So I mean, you can't really say "the market has spoken" because there is nothing to speak about. Anyway, I think Archeage will be very telling. It looks to be a very polished game with heavy sandbox concepts. Hopefully its sales will tell us how much interest there is in sandbox games.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
The funny thing is that I'm about 99% sure that this whole argument just comes down to everyone's perception of what sandbox means.
I'm guessing that you and Quirhid probably perceive sandbox to mean: Hardcore, FFA PvP, full loot, little to no developer content, huge barren world. Basically a game in the tradition of UO, Eve, or Darkfall. And if you define sandbox like this, I would agree...there is no massive crowd. FFA PvP and full loot alone is enough to chase tons of people away. And I think I know this because I remember all the complaints about it when everyone was playing pre-Trammel UO.
I, on the other hand, perceive sandbox as the "classic" definition of the term as seen on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_game). Basically any unguided experience where there is a big world and the player gets to decide how they want to play. This includes games like Elder Scrolls and GTA which currently have a MASSIVE following, so clearly, by my definition, sandbox games have a massive following.
That doesn't seem to translate into a massive sandbox MMORPG following though. If as many people wanted to play sandbox MMORPG as pay to play sandbox games in general, it seems like it would dwarf any other kind of MMORPG. However, that doesn't seem to be the case.
That's the observation bit. Here's the make up reasons with no sources and no proof bit. Those sandbox gamers couldn't play the way they want if there was a large population on the server. The guy driving through windows to rob places would get shot by another player playing a cop. Or the guy driving through windows to rob places wouldn't be able to drive through the player who was playing a shopkeeper's window because the game doesn't allow that. You can't be totally free in a game if everyone else is totally free as well. The feel of the game breaks down and it moves away from being that sandbox where you can do anything you want, any way you want. That's what I think anyway.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Which, as has often been stated, may be more a result of the quality of titles than any particular expression of preference.
The entire thread just keeps circling back to the same answer. It's impossible to separate cause and effect, despite the op's (and dozens of players) attempts to. Are sandboxes less popular because of player preferences, or because of poor production of good titles?
Some of both, maybe? A complex question that lacks a simple answer.
Fortunately, I don't even have to make a choice--except deciding to buy a new game, or not.
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.
TO OP:
If cities were designed 'closer' and less car dependent (thus far less parking spaces) and it was such that a person could ride a bike to get what they need, work and for fun within lets say 5 miles in all directions I think a LOT of people would like it.
However,using your logic, it doesnt exist many places in the US and only a few cities around have it which suggests people wouldnt like it.
I dont believe the latter.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
To me, it suggests that people's motivations may not be readily apparent.
(And suggests that "dream jobs < 5 miles away" is often excluded by simple Distribution...heh.)
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.
The entire thread just keeps circling back to the same answer. It's impossible to separate cause and effect, despite the op's (and dozens of players) attempts to. Are sandboxes less popular because of player preferences, or because of poor production of good titles?
Some of both, maybe? A complex question that lacks a simple answer.
Fortunately, I don't even have to make a choice--except deciding to buy a new game, or not.
I have to base my response to this on my personal experience and feedback from the people I game with, but my second paragraph covered one of the reasons I don't think the existence of sandbox games translates into a large sandbox MMORPG audience.
Single player sandbox games work because they are single player. Making them massively multi-player would make the games unattractive to the overall single player sandbox audience.
The same can be said about the multi-player sandbox games. They're attractive because the players themselves can run their own servers and keep control of their own games. They have the added bonus of playing with their friends versus random strangers. They get the best of both worlds.
But again, that's just what I think. I don't see any direct proof of a massive sandbox MMORPG audience. There's no direct proof that it doesn't exist either. In general though, if something is impossible to quantify, especially something that's been quantified for years (specific gamer audiences), then it's likely that it just doesn't exist or that it's so small, measuring it isn't worth it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
They've done studies on this. Cities spread out because of cars, cars didn't become necessary because cities spread out.
Bicycles are less popular than cars, not because of the distances needed to travel, but because they don't have covered tops, they don't have heating or air conditioning and they require people to supply the power versus the cars supplying power. Travel distance is certainly a factor, but if cities magically got closer together, bicycles wouldn't suddenly become massively popular. Put all the cities underground in a climate controlled setting and bicycles might become more popular, but I bet electric cars would still be more popular.
I have no idea what this adds to the discussion. I think it's a good example of why MMORPG.com posters just shouldn't make analogies.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I should have made it simpler.
Just because me and my friends are not dating hot women doesnt mean we dont want to.
In most things there is SUPPLY and demand. Not just one or the other.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The example I should have used to make my point is this.
Most of my friends are not dating hot women but that doesnt mean we dont want to.
The assumption of the OP is that because there isnt many sandboxes means that people dont want it. The supply chain in all things is much more controlled then people think.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The example I should have used to make my point is this.
Most of my friends are not dating hot women but that doesnt mean we dont want to.
The assumption of the OP is that because there isnt many sandboxes means that people dont want it. The supply chain in all things is much more controlled then people think.
That would imply that sandboxes exist, they're just not given to the people who want them. Or that the people who could write sandbox MMORPG think sandbox fans are ugly.
Believe it or not, I do get what you're saying. But have you not noticed that the analogies never clear anything up? No one ever says, "Ah Ha! Now I get it! Thank you for that analogy that made your statements clear!" It just starts an argument about the analogy itself.
The supply side of things is controlled. You have to wonder, if there is such a huge market for sandbox MMORPG, why isn't one being produced? It's not that developers don't like sandbox MMORPG players and they certainly don't care if they are ugly or not. They don't believe they can make enough money to make one work. The alternative thought is that they think they could make it work, but they could make more money with a theme park or hybrid game. Terms can get thrown around, but the bottom line is, "How many people will pay for my product?" If that number is too small, the project doesn't get funded.
That is not proof that the audience is tiny, but it's also not proof that it's huge. I think the only provable thing that can be said is that the audience definitely exists, we just don't know how big it is. If a sandbox game is going to come into existence, especially a AAA sandbox game, proof of the audience's size and existence needs to happen.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I am not trying to suggest that sandboxes ARE desired by the majority. I am just trying to suggest that because there arent many isnt evidence that people dont like them. we are both talking in extreemes.
Why is reality TV so popular? because its cheap to make and it attracts a certian demographic that is more suspectical to advertising then other demographics.
Could it be that the reasons sandboxes dont exist are any or all of the following reasons.
1. youth and the less intelligent are targeted because of a stradegy called 'product loyality'.
2. its a prooven formula that appears to be working.
3. the stradegy at the moment is to bring in new gamers and new gamers would be overwhelmed with too many game mechanic options.
4. templates for everything would have to be re-architected and that is expensive.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I can attest to that. I know people who play primarily multiplayer games and people who play primarily single player games - of the same genre ofc. Clearly there are some unattractive changes included in the transformation for both types.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
The example I should have used to make my point is this. Most of my friends are not dating hot women but that doesnt mean we dont want to. The assumption of the OP is that because there isnt many sandboxes means that people dont want it. The supply chain in all things is much more controlled then people think.
That would imply that sandboxes exist, they're just not given to the people who want them. Or that the people who could write sandbox MMORPG think sandbox fans are ugly. Believe it or not, I do get what you're saying. But have you not noticed that the analogies never clear anything up? No one ever says, "Ah Ha! Now I get it! Thank you for that analogy that made your statements clear!" It just starts an argument about the analogy itself. The supply side of things is controlled. You have to wonder, if there is such a huge market for sandbox MMORPG, why isn't one being produced? It's not that developers don't like sandbox MMORPG players and they certainly don't care if they are ugly or not. They don't believe they can make enough money to make one work. The alternative thought is that they think they could make it work, but they could make more money with a theme park or hybrid game. Terms can get thrown around, but the bottom line is, "How many people will pay for my product?" If that number is too small, the project doesn't get funded. That is not proof that the audience is tiny, but it's also not proof that it's huge. I think the only provable thing that can be said is that the audience definitely exists, we just don't know how big it is. If a sandbox game is going to come into existence, especially a AAA sandbox game, proof of the audience's size and existence needs to happen.
I am not trying to suggest that sandboxes ARE desired by the majority. I am just trying to suggest that because there arent many isnt evidence that people dont like them. we are both talking in extreemes.
Why is reality TV so popular? because its cheap to make and it attracts a certian demographic that is more suspectical to advertising then other demographics.
Could it be that the reasons sandboxes dont exist are any or all of the following reasons.
1. youth and the less intelligent are targeted because of a stradegy called 'product loyality'.
2. its a prooven formula that appears to be working.
3. the stradegy at the moment is to bring in new gamers and new gamers would be overwhelmed with too many game mechanic options.
4. templates for everything would have to be re-architected and that is expensive.
I think #2 is the most likely one. Developers are going to branch out and pull in sandbox features, but they're not going to completely abandon something that they know works.
I don't think number 4 has any impact or it is just part of #2. If we were talking about FPS or single player RPG, maybe, but with MMORPG developers start from scratch with each game. They can work with known features, but implementing them is new, every time. Existing templates don't matter because they can't really be used. There is not enterprise level MMORPG chat server that can be purchased. There's no MMORPG Network Stack that can be used because the graphic assets being transferred and the information being transferred is unique to each game.
Not sure about #1. I think some Eve players would say they have more product loyalty than anyone.
I don't think #3 would have too much impact either. Getting new players involved in the game has to do with how well the designers and developers do their job and not whether a game is theme park or sandbox.
If I was going to argue anything, I would argue that while people like Sandbox Games, they do not like Sandbox MMORPG as much as Sandbox Games and they don't like Sandbox MMORPG as much as they like Theme Park MMORPG. I would also argue that a game that combined elements of Theme Park MMORPG such as guided progression and guided story lines with Sandbox Features such as liberal crafting, land ownership and world modification would do better than either a fully Theme Park MMORPG or a fully Sandbox MMORPG.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
just to put product loyality into more perspective. The average age of a TV viewer is around 50+ but the average target audidence is under 20. Reason is they know for a fact now that product loyality at a young age works. There is a reason some people always drink Coke, or Pepsi . Once
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Your example is just falling back on the old FFA PvP argument again. We all know that FFA PvP is not attractive to everyone, in fact, it's probably only attractive to a minority. And yes, FFA PvP can definitely spoil single player esque sandbox fun.
But...sandboxes do NOT have to have FFA PvP. It isn't a requirement.
I really don't see why robbing a bank in a game like GTA would not be even more fun if you could do it with your friends. And you could have one guy be the getaway driver, one guy watch the hostages, and the other go into the vault. Just make it so it's not FFA PvP, and all of a sudden you can have the same "SP sandbox fun," but now you can do it with your friends.
Basically, the only difference I see between sandbox and themepark is that in a sandbox you decide what to do from a very large list of options and just about all options are open to you at any one time, and in a themepark, you decide what to do from a very small list options, and typically a smaller amount of options are available to you at any one point in time.
I mean, look at WoW. People have argue that it is a "sandbox" because you can:
Do dungeons, Quest, BG PvP, Craft, or Raid
But the reality is that these options boil down to a relatively small amount of things to do. You can quest...but only in the zone appropriate for your level. You can do dungeons...but only the ones approrpriate for you level, you can craft, but you only see a benefit from stuff appropriate for your level.
See what I'm getting at here? The game is directed by your level, your level decides what you can do, and the entire game world is never really open to you at any one point. Even at max level, you can go to low level areas, but they hold 0 appeal for you. Now at high level they have made it a bit more sandboxy by making heroic modes for the lower dungeons so that more is open to you...and I think this is a large part of why WoW has been successful at retaining subs.
Now contrast this with an actual sandbox game like Skyrim though. At first glance, it may seem like it is very similar to WoW. Because, in exception for the multiplayer stuff, you can do very similiar things. Quest, dungeons, craft, etc...
But the difference here isn't in what you can do, it's in how it's implemented. In Skyrim you can do just about any quest in the game at any time. Nearly the entire world is open to you at just about any point in the game. This is the difference. A themepark directs your experience, a sandbox doesn't. Or at least, those are the two extremes.
The more directed an experience is, the more themeparky it is. The more undirected it is, the more sandboxy it is. And I really don't see why a more undirected MMO wouldn't be popular. Do people really need that huge chain of quest nodes to play? Are we really too inept to just explore and find stuff to do? I really don't think so...and I think the popularity of SP sandboxes basically proves this.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
in addition to 'product loyality' which is something I brought up with someone else there is also a rule in psychology that says as soon as you go above expectation, the benchmark for expecation quickly increases. This is why I sometimes think my cellphone is a piece of crap because it doesnt load up a web browser fast. I forget that it wasnt even realistically possible not that long ago.
So from a marketing PR standpoint you want to keep the level of expectation and variety as low as possible even though it might create a spike of new consumers you will be forever required to match that.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Or maybe it's the other Null Expression in the statement syntax, people are tripping on what "massive" means?
1% of MMO gamers is still a pretty nasty-big number, expressable in scientific notation.
1% of the gaming market, on the other hand, is probably considered pretty small beans by most gaming studios. Others, like those tiny indie studios, would happily kill your whole family for that 1% of the market.
"Not massive enough/Plenty massive" is just a judgement call, made by people who have no real stake in the outcome of the bet. Who gets to choose?
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.