It's clear to me what is happening here. A number of posters here who are adamently opposed to sandbox's for whatever reason are trying to narrow the definition of to such a strict level that virtualy no game could meet it. Thus creating a circular arguement that somehow supports thier position. It's an illegitimate debating tactic that adds nothing to the discussion.
Poster A: Sandbox's aren't popular...
Poster B: Game X is popular...
Poster A: Game X is not a sandbox...
Poster B: Why, it has features A,B,C,D which are sandbox elements and which people enjoy.
Poster A: Those features aren't sufficient to make it a sandbox...
Poster B: How so?
Poster A: Because they are popular and games that are popular can't be sandbox's.
I'm fairly certain if a game with the exact same features as some of the popular ones who have been noted here were dismaly unpopular, the very same posters would suddenly find a way to classify it as a "sandbox" and use it to support thier premise of sandbox's being unpopular.
What are you people so afraid of? That developers are suddenly going to turn around and stop producing Themeparks because they think thier's no audience for them anymore? That's not going to happen, clearly there is an audience for themeparks....that doesn't mean there isn't one for sandbox's too. There's room for more then one flavor of ice cream in this shop. It may even come as a shock to you that there are people who LIKE BOTH Themeparks and Sandbox's and will play whichever one they happen to be in the mood for at the time.
It's also a fact that no amount of your arguements, convincing, debates or rhetoric is going to make someone who really WANTS to play a sandbox go out and purchase a Themepark instead. People are NOT going to waste thier time and money doing something that is NOT FUN for them....they'll simply go out and find some other hobby/activity which is fun instead.
You are actualy HURTING the hobby as a whole, the game developers and YOURSELVES by being so dismissive of other peoples preferences.
I'm not afraid of anything. I'm increasingly annoyed how posters of questionable intellect state day in day out how SWTOR, WAR, AoC or any other AAA MMORPG failed because "people want sandboxes". Which is an outrageous claim without any shred of proof. The only, the only major sandox is Eve Online and it is dwarfed by even the supposedly failed themeparks.
These same people grasp anything an turn it into an argument towards sandboxes - rational or irrational, relevant or irrelevant. When something is against their agenda they dismiss it or try to discredit the source. They use the word "freedom" like a punchline, a rallying cry, and imply that everyone who raises issues with the sandbox design as against freedom and the anti-christ. Stupid North American politics, I'm sorry, but thats what it is.
Even in this thread, for a people who claim to be superior to the themepark crowd, 4 out of 5 comments are surprisingly immature. I appreciate all the good responses and the debate we've been having with few posters, but this thread also shows the community's darker side which is usually linked with the "themepark crowd" as some may call it. Like they are some sort of rabble among the sandbox playing master-race. Yes, you have to only make a volatile thread to show that no one is better than the other.
The whole notion that sandboxes somehow require a refined taste. Like its some vintage wine or something? Bullshit. Complete and utter garbage. There are people who love sandboxes their first time of playing and there are people who grow out of them. There is nothing special about them. They have a different flavor, but neither game type is inherently superior. It only seems that the demand and popularity of themepark MMORPGs is much greater than that of sandboxes.
The point of this thread was touched multiple times in this thread. For example Icewhite hit the nail:
"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."
I only put up the initial statement as to invite people to prove it wrong.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
It's clear to me what is happening here. A number of posters here who are adamently opposed to sandbox's for whatever reason are trying to narrow the definition of to such a strict level that virtualy no game could meet it. Thus creating a circular arguement that somehow supports thier position. It's an illegitimate debating tactic that adds nothing to the discussion.
Poster A: Sandbox's aren't popular...
Poster B: Game X is popular...
Poster A: Game X is not a sandbox...
Poster B: Why, it has features A,B,C,D which are sandbox elements and which people enjoy.
Poster A: Those features aren't sufficient to make it a sandbox...
Poster B: How so?
Poster A: Because they are popular and games that are popular can't be sandbox's.
I'm fairly certain if a game with the exact same features as some of the popular ones who have been noted here were dismaly unpopular, the very same posters would suddenly find a way to classify it as a "sandbox" and use it to support thier premise of sandbox's being unpopular.
What are you people so afraid of? That developers are suddenly going to turn around and stop producing Themeparks because they think thier's no audience for them anymore? That's not going to happen, clearly there is an audience for themeparks....that doesn't mean there isn't one for sandbox's too. There's room for more then one flavor of ice cream in this shop. It may even come as a shock to you that there are people who LIKE BOTH Themeparks and Sandbox's and will play whichever one they happen to be in the mood for at the time.
It's also a fact that no amount of your arguements, convincing, debates or rhetoric is going to make someone who really WANTS to play a sandbox go out and purchase a Themepark instead. People are NOT going to waste thier time and money doing something that is NOT FUN for them....they'll simply go out and find some other hobby/activity which is fun instead.
You are actualy HURTING the hobby as a whole, the game developers and YOURSELVES by being so dismissive of other peoples preferences.
I'm not afraid of anything. I'm increasingly annoyed how posters of questionable intellect state day in day out how SWTOR, WAR, AoC or any other AAA MMORPG failed because "people want sandboxes". Which is an outrageous claim without any shred of proof. The only, the only major sandox is Eve Online and it is dwarfed by even the supposedly failed themeparks.
...
When all else fails...call your opponents stupid .
But really...I don't think those games failed because people want sandboxes. I think those games failed because they were uninspired WoW clones (SWTOR), and/or had game crippling issues at release (AoC).
Originally posted by lizardbonesThe $25 million dollars it would cost to create a sandbox targeted to Western MMORPG players seems like a fairly large road block.
I thought it was $26 million???
Nope it clearly only takes 25 million to make a sandbox. They save in the exclamation point and question mark departments.
Sanya Weathers stated that it takes a minimum of $10 million to create a minimal MMORPG. Jake Soong (of ArcheAge) is spending $25 million to build ArcheAge. Rift cost something like $50 million. $25 million for an entry level sandbox MMORPG sounds like a good figure to me.
We'd have to ask the Perpetuum guys what it takes to make a sandbox MMORPG with no character avatar features.
** edit ** Entry level AAA sandbox MMORPG.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by AdamTM Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by AdamTMOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by AdamTMThats why this whole discussion is completely moot, to pose that there isn't a market for X, there would have needed to be a market for X in the first place.
Wow, that's a post pyramid there. If something can't be quantified, does it really matter if it actually exists? It amounts to the same thing. The audience may exist, but it's just like it doesn't exist. Now you assume it -can't- be quantified?Of course it can, just try to quantify it by making a game that should appeal to that target demographic.You are running logical circles around the subject.Markets don't appear one day out of nowhere, markets are -made-.If you wait for markets to pop into existence and then try to jump on the bandwaggon, you are doing free market economy wrong.In 2008 there was no market for small social bite-sized games centered around farming, Zynga created that market a year later.In 2003 there was no market for MMORPGs, Blizzard came and created a market.In 2001 there was no market for tablets.In 1996 there was no market for motion controls.etc.There is always "no market for X" until someone creates it with a superior product. The $25 million dollars it would cost to create a sandbox targeted to Western MMORPG players seems like a fairly large road block. In all the examples above, there was some quantifiable reason to believe that the markets existed. They didn't put millions or billions of dollars into the development of tablets without some evidence they could present to financial backers that the market existed. That's the kind of evidence that's needed for AAA sandbox games to receive money for development. AND THERE IS.
Single-player sandbox games.
Just as there was a quantifiable reason to make smartphones as evidenced by palmtops and just as there was the PowerGlove before the Wii.
This is now slowly turning into a religious discussion, where you will hold your position no matter what kind of evidence i bring up by just repeating yourself.
It's not a religious thing. Playing a single player game is very different from playing a multi-9player game. Minecraft is a very good example of this. If you play Minecraft in single player mode, as most mc players do, it is substantially different from playing with your friends and playing with up to 200 strangers is even more different still. The rules and the game itself is exactly the same, but the game play is completely different.
This is why I don't see single player sandbox games as a good indicator of sandbox mmorpg appeal. If the game play felt nearly the same or even similar, then yeah, I could see it. It doesn't though. It's like playing a completely different game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
When all else fails...call your opponents stupid .
But really...I don't think those games failed because people want sandboxes. I think those games failed because they were uninspired WoW clones (SWTOR), and/or had game crippling issues at release (AoC).
I'm not talking about you. You're not one of those people I speak of. But there really isn't no other way to describe the people I am talkign about.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
but then, is Vanguard a Themepark or Sandbox? You can build Houses, clearly the player can create stuff in it, yet the player still has to go from area to arrea with appropriate level Mobs do the related quests and dungeons, hence the rides, in order to Progress in the game, in the world.
It is linear and directed and the player must do the rides otherwise their progression ends.
Furthermore, how do you explain Star Trek Online, which has an identical Themepark progression, yet the player can now Author and Add their own Quests/Mission too in to it?
See this is why, the quality of Sandox, cannot only be based on the fact that the player can in some way alter the world, it is simply not sufficient to satisfy the qualification.
The gameplay experience has to be non linear, non directed, in player terms, Freedom of action, first and foremost.
in my view, converselly to yours, being able to create and alter the world is a feature, where in your view converselly to mine, non linear gameplay is the feature.
Maybe the reality is somewhere in between. And both are required for an MMO to be Sandbox.
(and I have been following very well do not worry)
I found Vanguard to largely be a themepark, because I engaged with more themepark features than sandbox. It's possible that at endgame all the crafting/creating/buidling stuff reaches critical mass and that the game is actually sandbox at endgame. I didn't get too far (maybe level 20.)
STO is a themepark. Just like other games which have very sandbox features (EQ2, City of Heroes) but which are nevertheless predominantly themepark.
The core game experience is predominantly themepark, so the game is themepark.
I've stated that the core game experience defines a game so many times in this thread, yet you're assuming a handful of sandbox featuers would magically make a game a sandbox...why?
I beg your pardon?
You have been debating about the Feature of being able to use the "sand" aka, alteringthe world, or authoring etc, as the Core element of determining if a Game is a Sandbox or not, and now you are trying to turn that on me?
No sorry Axe, respect your input but I will not accept you to turn tables like that, if you changed your mind about your view of Sandbox just admit it. Ok?
It is OK to be wrong it is also OK to change one;s mind, this is not a place to for notoriety, it is a place of discussion. We can all be wrong from time to time and it is fine.
Building houses and altering the world if it is part of the Core features which makes up the Core gameplay remains nevertheless a Feature, the Core gameplay is non linear and freeform Gameplay where the player decide their own goals within the game.
So, the core gameplay of a Sandbox is characterized by non linearity and lack of direction, and the core gameplay of a Themepark is characterised by linearity and direction.
Anything else is part of the list of features a Designer chooses to include in their game. And both types can intermix these features.
Vanguard is a themepark even if it has Housing, at "endgame" too, actually the notion of "endgame" implies a destination and that there was a path a direction in order to arrive at it. And it is pretty much a term associated with themepark designs, a Sandbox never had an "endgame", because such a destination cannot be predicted by the design itself since the player is free to make that decision.
And STO is also a themepark even if players can Author their own Content.
Cheers!
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
When all else fails...call your opponents stupid .
But really...I don't think those games failed because people want sandboxes. I think those games failed because they were uninspired WoW clones (SWTOR), and/or had game crippling issues at release (AoC).
I'm not talking about you. You're not one of those people I speak of. But there really isn't no other way to describe the people I am talkign about.
Well, I suppose that means me, for example.
You know, we've tried to explain our reasoning many times for those comments around here. And several times to you specifically. But like any good themepark hard-on'er, you simply refuse to accept our reasoning without any reason other than "you're stupid".
If there's one thing that gets me the most, and proves the hardheaded block you themepark hard-on'ers put up, it's that we use a simple and very general term like "sandbox", and instead of ever considering that we might mean what we've said we mean, you themepark hard-on'ers jump into a long and conversation killing epic journey to tell us what we meant. Why doncha just listen to us and debate the merits of what we mean instead of the limitations of what words we choose?
Here's a new one for you.....
Themepark games = a home for the criminally insanely boringly duplicitous haters of anything more in-depth than monumentally monotonously reptitively honing to the brain center for finite captivity of one brain cell, likely the only one residing in-head.
That's my new meaning for that term, mmmkay? From now on, when I say "themepark" I mean that, because I'd rather not type out that whole thing every time. Just to be clear.
eve was fun for awhile, but after awhile you figure out that it's just a pretty, space farmville with combat. You set up your skills, go farm some asteroids or pirates or whatever, log off and come back when skills are trained. There might be a couple of pvp moments in there somewhere, but today almost noone has massive warfare like there used to be. Haven't seen a pvp battle where people were dropping from lag in a loooong time.
Eve wasn't really a real sandbox anyways. Real sandboxes include a box with sand in it. players build the castles and moats...that's where the term came from :P
When all else fails...call your opponents stupid .
But really...I don't think those games failed because people want sandboxes. I think those games failed because they were uninspired WoW clones (SWTOR), and/or had game crippling issues at release (AoC).
I'm not talking about you. You're not one of those people I speak of. But there really isn't no other way to describe the people I am talkign about.
Well, I suppose that means me, for example.
You know, we've tried to explain our reasoning many times for those comments around here. And several times to you specifically. But like any good themepark hard-on'er, you simply refuse to accept our reasoning without any reason other than "you're stupid".
If there's one thing that gets me the most, and proves the hardheaded block you themepark hard-on'ers put up, it's that we use a simple and very general term like "sandbox", and instead of ever considering that we might mean what we've said we mean, you themepark hard-on'ers jump into a long and conversation killing epic journey to tell us what we meant. Why doncha just listen to us and debate the merits of what we mean instead of the limitations of what words we choose?
Here's a new one for you.....
Themepark games = a home for the criminally insanely boringly duplicitous haters of anything more in-depth than monumentally monotonously reptitively honing to the brain center for finite captivity of one brain cell, likely the only one residing in-head.
That's my new meaning for that term, mmmkay? From now on, when I say "themepark" I mean that, because I'd rather not type out that whole thing every time. Just to be clear.
I will tell you what I mean.....games like SWG are unwanted by most MMO players. There is a devout group of individuals that wanna play a game like SWG, but in the overall scheme their numbers are puny.
Saying "folks like Skyrim so that proves they want a MMO sandbox" is totally off base. Accept it or not, but the games some of you enjoy just arent being made cause they dont play the bills.
I hope you guys enjoy AA. Being made in Korea, that game is being produced for pennies on the dollar vs a similar game made in the states. Song is getting major bang for his investment buck. Perhaps it will be a mega hit, but more than likely it will be another sandbox MMO with a poor showing for western subs.
I really dont care either way, cause I think everyone should have games they like, and posters here like Loke n Kyleran are good chaps. That said, dont sit there and tell us you guys are bringing as much money/customers to the table as the themepark crowd, cause it simply isnt true. If it was, more devs would be making them.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
eve was fun for awhile, but after awhile you figure out that it's just a pretty, space farmville with combat. You set up your skills, go farm some asteroids or pirates or whatever, log off and come back when skills are trained. There might be a couple of pvp moments in there somewhere, but today almost noone has massive warfare like there used to be. Haven't seen a pvp battle where people were dropping from lag in a loooong time.
Eve wasn't really a real sandbox anyways. Real sandboxes include a box with sand in it. players build the castles and moats...that's where the term came from :P
i do not disagree with you about EVE, except the fact that you can build Castles and moats in EVE in the form of Stations and StarBases with all the facilities to support them including the Logistics. Conquer territory and engage in politics, but this gameplay is not accessible to new players, and the worse part of EVE is its Skill System and the way it is setup.
If it was based on player actions as UO EVE would be much more exciting 3 fold....but its progression is in fact, albeit well hidden because of all the other features...Directed by the design, it is why despite its sanbox focus on 0 sec, I see it as a not quite Sandbox game.
As for the larger discussion on Sanbox...yes Litearally Taken the term means a Box with Sand...
BUT, both the term Sandbox and Themepark are used as an Analogy when one describes a given game Design, and that is I think another issue in all of this debate.
In my view, whomever used first these terms wanted to express the Difference between their design and another design, in that one was Linear and Directed (Themepark), and the other was non linear and Freeform (Sandbox)....
The analogy really ends there...
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
When all else fails...call your opponents stupid .
But really...I don't think those games failed because people want sandboxes. I think those games failed because they were uninspired WoW clones (SWTOR), and/or had game crippling issues at release (AoC).
I'm not talking about you. You're not one of those people I speak of. But there really isn't no other way to describe the people I am talkign about.
Well, I suppose that means me, for example.
You know, we've tried to explain our reasoning many times for those comments around here. And several times to you specifically. But like any good themepark hard-on'er, you simply refuse to accept our reasoning without any reason other than "you're stupid".
If there's one thing that gets me the most, and proves the hardheaded block you themepark hard-on'ers put up, it's that we use a simple and very general term like "sandbox", and instead of ever considering that we might mean what we've said we mean, you themepark hard-on'ers jump into a long and conversation killing epic journey to tell us what we meant. Why doncha just listen to us and debate the merits of what we mean instead of the limitations of what words we choose?
Here's a new one for you.....
Themepark games = a home for the criminally insanely boringly duplicitous haters of anything more in-depth than monumentally monotonously reptitively honing to the brain center for finite captivity of one brain cell, likely the only one residing in-head.
That's my new meaning for that term, mmmkay? From now on, when I say "themepark" I mean that, because I'd rather not type out that whole thing every time. Just to be clear.
I will tell you what I mean.....games like SWG are unwanted by most MMO players. There is a devout group of individuals that wanna play a game like SWG, but in the overall scheme their numbers are puny.
Saying "folks like Skyrim so that proves they want a MMO sandbox" is totally off base. Accept it or not, but the games some of you enjoy just arent being made cause they dont play the bills.
I hope you guys enjoy AA. Being made in Korea, that game is being produced for pennies on the dollar vs a similar game made in the states. Song is getting major bang for his investment buck. Perhaps it will be a mega hit, but more than likely it will be another sandbox MMO with a poor showing for western subs.
I really dont care either way, cause I think everyone should have games they like, and posters here like Loke n Kyleran are good chaps. That said, dont sit there and tell us you guys are bringing as much money/customers to the table as the themepark crowd, cause it simply isnt true. If it was, more devs would be making them.
My point all along is that a themepark game plays like a themepark game, even if it has sandbox features. And that's the case, I fear, with AA. If it does well, it will be because it's a great themepark game a la WoW, plus the sandbox features to give it that extra something that themepark players are looking for. I don't think it will be as good at themepark as WoW, and I further think that it will feel disconnected to either themepark or sandbox. For all the players who are now looking for sandbox, and this includes the many, many, who don't realize it yet (because they've never known what a good sandbox could be like), it still won't really satisfy that desire for "something different".
That's just my impressions about ArchAge at this point, we all need to see more to really know what it's like.
And this was the problem with SWG too. It was a little of both, and failed to really capture a place that felt quite right. It was sandbox, but then it played too much like themepark because of the "level grind" aspect of it's skill system, but more importantly it's items and craft system.
As far as bringing money to the table, when a great sandbox game is made, and doesn't compromise, you'll see the money. But of course I can't prove that. However, the industry is proving time and time again that themepark games are no longer bringing it either. And I don't want to hear about TOR and it's "current" 1.4 mil subs, because that number is old and based on free time, and the drop off has continued like someone threw a skunk into the room.
Thats why this whole discussion is completely moot, to pose that there isn't a market for X, there would have needed to be a market for X in the first place.
Wow, that's a post pyramid there. If something can't be quantified, does it really matter if it actually exists? It amounts to the same thing. The audience may exist, but it's just like it doesn't exist.
Now you assume it -can't- be quantified?Of course it can, just try to quantify it by making a game that should appeal to that target demographic.You are running logical circles around the subject.Markets don't appear one day out of nowhere, markets are -made-.If you wait for markets to pop into existence and then try to jump on the bandwaggon, you are doing free market economy wrong.In 2008 there was no market for small social bite-sized games centered around farming, Zynga created that market a year later.In 2003 there was no market for MMORPGs, Blizzard came and created a market.In 2001 there was no market for tablets.In 1996 there was no market for motion controls.etc.There is always "no market for X" until someone creates it with a superior product.
The $25 million dollars it would cost to create a sandbox targeted to Western MMORPG players seems like a fairly large road block. In all the examples above, there was some quantifiable reason to believe that the markets existed. They didn't put millions or billions of dollars into the development of tablets without some evidence they could present to financial backers that the market existed. That's the kind of evidence that's needed for AAA sandbox games to receive money for development.
AND THERE IS.
Single-player sandbox games.
Just as there was a quantifiable reason to make smartphones as evidenced by palmtops and just as there was the PowerGlove before the Wii.
This is now slowly turning into a religious discussion, where you will hold your position no matter what kind of evidence i bring up by just repeating yourself.
It's not a religious thing. Playing a single player game is very different from playing a multi-9player game. Minecraft is a very good example of this. If you play Minecraft in single player mode, as most mc players do, it is substantially different from playing with your friends and playing with up to 200 strangers is even more different still. The rules and the game itself is exactly the same, but the game play is completely different.
This is why I don't see single player sandbox games as a good indicator of sandbox mmorpg appeal. If the game play felt nearly the same or even similar, then yeah, I could see it. It doesn't though. It's like playing a completely different game.
Name an achievable, quantifiable indicator that -you- would accept for appeal.
I.e. What would i need to present that you would accept as an argument.
If you say "a popular sandbox" im going to shoot a puppy.
Thats why this whole discussion is completely moot, to pose that there isn't a market for X, there would have needed to be a market for X in the first place.
Wow, that's a post pyramid there. If something can't be quantified, does it really matter if it actually exists? It amounts to the same thing. The audience may exist, but it's just like it doesn't exist.
Now you assume it -can't- be quantified?Of course it can, just try to quantify it by making a game that should appeal to that target demographic.You are running logical circles around the subject.Markets don't appear one day out of nowhere, markets are -made-.If you wait for markets to pop into existence and then try to jump on the bandwaggon, you are doing free market economy wrong.In 2008 there was no market for small social bite-sized games centered around farming, Zynga created that market a year later.In 2003 there was no market for MMORPGs, Blizzard came and created a market.In 2001 there was no market for tablets.In 1996 there was no market for motion controls.etc.There is always "no market for X" until someone creates it with a superior product.
The $25 million dollars it would cost to create a sandbox targeted to Western MMORPG players seems like a fairly large road block. In all the examples above, there was some quantifiable reason to believe that the markets existed. They didn't put millions or billions of dollars into the development of tablets without some evidence they could present to financial backers that the market existed. That's the kind of evidence that's needed for AAA sandbox games to receive money for development.
AND THERE IS.Single-player sandbox games.Just as there was a quantifiable reason to make smartphones as evidenced by palmtops and just as there was the PowerGlove before the Wii.This is now slowly turning into a religious discussion, where you will hold your position no matter what kind of evidence i bring up by just repeating yourself.
It's not a religious thing. Playing a single player game is very different from playing a multi-9player game. Minecraft is a very good example of this. If you play Minecraft in single player mode, as most mc players do, it is substantially different from playing with your friends and playing with up to 200 strangers is even more different still. The rules and the game itself is exactly the same, but the game play is completely different. This is why I don't see single player sandbox games as a good indicator of sandbox mmorpg appeal. If the game play felt nearly the same or even similar, then yeah, I could see it. It doesn't though. It's like playing a completely different game.
Name an achievable, quantifiable indicator that -you- would accept for appeal.
I.e. What would i need to present that you would accept as an argument.
If you say "a popular sandbox" im going to shoot a puppy.
Boy, it's a good thing I like puppies.
Anyway, Minecraft has come up a couple of times, but what gets said is, "A lot of people play Minecraft" and then something vague is added about the multi-player option. As a statement used to show proof of the sandbox audience, it really sucks. It's just bad.
However, if you run a Bukkit server, and you want people to know about your server, you run a plugin called "MineQuery". The name has changed, but that's what the plugin file is called. Anyway, people can query servers with this plugin and see how many people your server supports and how many people are logged into the server. There's even a website that keeps up with everyone who wants to register there. Actual proof would start with someone quantifying the people who have registered there servers, the number of available spaces for people to play and the number of people who are concurrently logged in.
There are about 8,000 servers online right now. There's no way to get an average server size, but they range from 50 to 600. Because of memory constraints and bandwidth constraints, most of them probably have between 100 and 200 open slots. So that's between 800,000 and 1,600,000 available player slots. You'd have to talk to the people running the site to get a count of concurrent players, and you'd have to talk them into modifying the plugin to get a total list of unique players. You'd also have to break the results down between servers that are Creative only, Survival only, Hardcore mode and servers that exist solely as match based PvP servers as well, but I'm sure the MineQuery plugin could report that kind of information if it was updated to do so.
A significant number of people playing a primarily single player game as a multiplayer and sometimes MMORPG-like game using nothing but community written code. The community took it upon themselves to do this. That would be quantified proof.
I am lazy and I don't have any real interest in doing this myself, but it certainly seems possible to me. Surveys of Skyrim players might be good too.
** edit ** You really have no idea how hard it was to not say, "A popular sandbox MMORPG". Really. Stuff like that drives my wife bugsh!t and gets me in trouble all the time.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
When all else fails...call your opponents stupid .
But really...I don't think those games failed because people want sandboxes. I think those games failed because they were uninspired WoW clones (SWTOR), and/or had game crippling issues at release (AoC).
See Creslin understands why SWTOR failed, he understands why AoC failed. You? You claim that they failed because players secretly want to play sandboxes.
You imply that adding sandbox features to any game makes it better or deeper somehow. Just like you seem to think that making a MMORPG out of any RPG makes it automatically better. Both claims just are not true.
Go ahead and think of Skyrim as a MMORPG. Scaling wouldn't work. Random encounters wouldn't work or would be exploited. Quests would have to be made static in order to accomodate multiple player characters. The character advancement system would have to be revamped and balanced. How about PvP rules and how those fit your immersion? The more you think about it the worse it sounds. The game would be only a shell of its single player self. The lead designer of Skyrim refused to make an ES MMORPG, said something like "they were meant to be single player games". Now someone else is making it - cashing in on the franchise.
You do not prove the existence of an AAA sandbox viable community by taking examples from single player games because the transformation means more than just "adding multiplayer".
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Lol I just read some where and can't reply to the post because I'm posting from a mobile! That themeparks in genral dwarf eve online!!! And this particular guy did the whole let's have a stab at peoples level of interlect while himself completely getting his post horribly wrong !!! Typical isn't it?.. Fact is ! Eve online is privvy to being the worlds largest game! It has the the largest game world ever created. It is just one massive server that every one plays in ! With between 30-60 k players online at any one time all hours of the day across all the worlds time zones! .. What other game does that! I know for a fact that no other game does! Not even wow. Not bad for a game with a supposed 500k subscriptions is it . Probably important to add eve is like 9 years old too and still being developed and improved and is growing!!! Again ! No other game can make that claim! And the reason eve is a success is because its a well created well planned well supported and well done sandbox! Nothing more! The game just appeals with longevity to enough people to keep it alive!! ...... Wow doesn't ! Its declining! Swtor doesn't that's dieing! Nothing else is worth a comparison
Quests and stories in sandbox games ruin the sandbox! That's an example of developers trying to cater for all and it doesn't work! Its like marmite! Some people like it and some do not, marmite cannot be altered to appeal to all because it would no longer be marmite. Sandbox should remain strictly sandbox!! No rules no stories no quest!! Just content and players
You do not prove the existence of an AAA sandbox viable community by taking examples from single player games because the transformation means more than just "adding multiplayer".
You don't "prove" its existence at all. Curious to feel that someone needs to.
The sheer number of people disagreeing with the op should provide sufficient evidence that some kind of market potential does exist...even if it's only limited to people who visit this site.
Beyond that, it's quibbling over what "massive" means, exactly.
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 Adamai Lol I just read some where and can't reply to the post because I'm posting from a mobile! That themeparks in genral dwarf eve online!!! And this particular guy did the whole let's have a stab at peoples level of interlect while himself completely getting his post horribly wrong !!! Typical isn't it?.. Fact is ! Eve online is privvy to being the worlds largest game! It has the the largest game world ever created. It is just one massive server that every one plays in ! With between 30-60 k players online at any one time all hours of the day across all the worlds time zones! .. What other game does that! I know for a fact that no other game does! Not even wow. Not bad for a game with a supposed 500k subscriptions is it . Probably important to add eve is like 9 years old too and still being developed and improved and is growing!!! Again ! No other game can make that claim! And the reason eve is a success is because its a well created well planned well supported and well done sandbox! Nothing more! The game just appeals with longevity to enough people to keep it alive!! ...... Wow doesn't ! Its declining! Swtor doesn't that's dieing! Nothing else is worth a comparison
I think at its heart the mmoRPG fans are not only a small portion of the population that plays mmorpgs these days but i think a large portion of these RPG fans would love a high quality throwback to the days of UO before the easy mode and AC ect.
I think that theres FAR too many gamers involved with mmoRPG's that HATE RPG games...and you see a lot of the issues these people have involve with things not being eared quick enough or easy enough.
mmorpgs started trending away from what an RPG was all about some time after 2004, and started to turn into action game merry-go rounds that removed and thought/difficulty/choice from the progression path and made the object of the game repeatedly running instanced mini-games in the form of raids and pvp and the main objective.
Now you look at games and more is talked about "balance" which means "mow accurately does the game recreate a FPS style death match in terms of everyones the same"...balance wasnt suppose to be in the equation with mmorpgs you balance by adding a warrior to your mage/priest/rogue group...thats balance in a rpg.
I really think that if the masses of players that dont realize that the RPG aspect of the games they play are the root of their qualms, and possibly move on to other online games, only then can we get back to games that are meant for the smaller RPG crowd, the ones that want a complex progression with chioces, ones who want a high quality sandbox ect.
The only real sandbox out there thats decently made and modern is Darkfall and its full of FPS players who dont want any progression just a full loot deathmatch. The same people who scared away any player who would have enjoyed the games solid pve. The rest of the sandboxes anre ancient and modified beyond recognition or crappy post-launch alphas that cant get the basics to function.
Also citing games that launch as unfinished unstable barely funcioning games, and happen to be sandbox, is not proof positive that sandboxes fail...you launch a themepark under the same conditions and you get Alganon, any game launched like that fails.
I think at its heart the mmoRPG fans are not only a small portion of the population that plays mmorpgs these days but i think a large portion of these RPG fans would love a high quality throwback to the days of UO before the easy mode and AC ect.
I think that theres FAR too many gamers involved with mmoRPG's that HATE RPG games...and you see a lot of the issues these people have involve with things not being eared quick enough or easy enough.
I would argue that in the first few years of WoW, the majority of the players had never played a single player RPG before. /shrug, it was a common occurrance for me to see. At the time, I had been in over 15,000 houses since Wow's inception and I would speak to families who all played WoW, as a family, and I would ask them if they had ever played a single player RPG before and the answer I received was "no" most of the time. Obviously not all the time, but most of the time.
I certainly cannot agree with your statement above... I personally think at this point what is being echoed in this rather long discussion of mixed emotions is that gamers who play video games are looking for better quality online games. We are seeing quite a few incredible single player RPGs, but nothing that is translating to the online gaming community. Hence the citing of Skyrim, which I have done myself, as an example.
mmorpgs started trending away from what an RPG was all about some time after 2004, and started to turn into action game merry-go rounds that removed and thought/difficulty/choice from the progression path and made the object of the game repeatedly running instanced mini-games in the form of raids and pvp and the main objective.
Now you look at games and more is talked about "balance" which means "mow accurately does the game recreate a FPS style death match in terms of everyones the same"...balance wasnt suppose to be in the equation with mmorpgs you balance by adding a warrior to your mage/priest/rogue group...thats balance in a rpg.
I really think that if the masses of players that dont realize that the RPG aspect of the games they play are the root of their qualms, and possibly move on to other online games, only then can we get back to games that are meant for the smaller RPG crowd, the ones that want a complex progression with chioces, ones who want a high quality sandbox ect.
The only real sandbox out there thats decently made and modern is Darkfall and its full of FPS players who dont want any progression just a full loot deathmatch. The same people who scared away any player who would have enjoyed the games solid pve. The rest of the sandboxes anre ancient and modified beyond recognition or crappy post-launch alphas that cant get the basics to function.
Also citing games that launch as unfinished unstable barely funcioning games, and happen to be sandbox, is not proof positive that sandboxes fail...you launch a themepark under the same conditions and you get Alganon, any game launched like that fails.
To me, any high quality online game would be nice... Something that takes the quality of story-telling and immersion and delivers professionally. I do not care what type of online game it is anymore... That is how bad it is in my opinion... I prefer open world, choose your path, sandboxy type of games, but at this point if it actually works and is delivered professionally and with a high level of quality, I am in... The bottom line in all of this is the games have to be fun, entertaining... and I feel the fun has been sucked out of them, and obviously fun is different for different people but it seems clear to me that the industry of mmorpg/online game genre, like in boxing, has taken a dive.
You don't "prove" its existence at all. Curious to feel that someone needs to.
The sheer number of people disagreeing with the op should provide sufficient evidence that some kind of market potential does exist...even if it's only limited to people who visit this site.
Beyond that, it's quibbling over what "massive" means, exactly.
That would be true if these forums didn't have an abnormal concentration of sandbox players. MMORPG.com forum community does not portray the MMORPG community as a whole. Then there's the "silence of the majority/moderate": Most people who visit these forums do not post and often those who do post have extreme views.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I think at its heart the mmoRPG fans are not only a small portion of the population that plays mmorpgs these days but i think a large portion of these RPG fans would love a high quality throwback to the days of UO before the easy mode and AC ect.
I think that theres FAR too many gamers involved with mmoRPG's that HATE RPG games...and you see a lot of the issues these people have involve with things not being eared quick enough or easy enough.
I would argue that in the first few years of WoW, the majority of the players had never played a single player RPG before. /shrug, it was a common occurrance for me to see. At the time, I had been in over 15,000 houses since Wow's inception and I would speak to families who all played WoW, as a family, and I would ask them if they had ever played a single player RPG before and the answer I received was "no" most of the time. Obviously not all the time, but most of the time.
I certainly cannot agree with your statement above... I personally think at this point what is being echoed in this rather long discussion of mixed emotions is that gamers who play video games are looking for better quality online games. We are seeing quite a few incredible single player RPGs, but nothing that is translating to the online gaming community. Hence the citing of Skyrim, which I have done myself, as an example.
mmorpgs started trending away from what an RPG was all about some time after 2004, and started to turn into action game merry-go rounds that removed and thought/difficulty/choice from the progression path and made the object of the game repeatedly running instanced mini-games in the form of raids and pvp and the main objective.
Now you look at games and more is talked about "balance" which means "mow accurately does the game recreate a FPS style death match in terms of everyones the same"...balance wasnt suppose to be in the equation with mmorpgs you balance by adding a warrior to your mage/priest/rogue group...thats balance in a rpg.
I really think that if the masses of players that dont realize that the RPG aspect of the games they play are the root of their qualms, and possibly move on to other online games, only then can we get back to games that are meant for the smaller RPG crowd, the ones that want a complex progression with chioces, ones who want a high quality sandbox ect.
The only real sandbox out there thats decently made and modern is Darkfall and its full of FPS players who dont want any progression just a full loot deathmatch. The same people who scared away any player who would have enjoyed the games solid pve. The rest of the sandboxes anre ancient and modified beyond recognition or crappy post-launch alphas that cant get the basics to function.
Also citing games that launch as unfinished unstable barely funcioning games, and happen to be sandbox, is not proof positive that sandboxes fail...you launch a themepark under the same conditions and you get Alganon, any game launched like that fails.
To me, any high quality online game would be nice... Something that takes the quality of story-telling and immersion and delivers professionally. I do not care what type of online game it is anymore... That is how bad it is in my opinion... I prefer open world, choose your path, sandboxy type of games, but at this point if it actually works and is delivered professionally and with a high level of quality, I am in... The bottom line in all of this is the games have to be fun, entertaining... and I feel the fun has been sucked out of them, and obviously fun is different for different people but it seems clear to me that the industry of mmorpg/online game genre, like in boxing, has taken a dive.
It just proves my point that what people really want is just a professionally made game.
You don't "prove" its existence at all. Curious to feel that someone needs to.
The sheer number of people disagreeing with the op should provide sufficient evidence that some kind of market potential does exist...even if it's only limited to people who visit this site.
Beyond that, it's quibbling over what "massive" means, exactly.
That would be true if these forums didn't have an abnormal concentration of sandbox players. MMORPG.com forum community does not portray the MMORPG community as a whole. Then there's the "silence of the majority/moderate": Most people who visit these forums do not post and often those who do post have extreme views.
Lets take my personal story as an example.
In the past I wouldnt consider indie games thinking to myself 'well clearly it cant be as good as the mainstream games I will keep my option to those games that have filtered to the top of the PR machine to make my life simple'
So I played EQ2, and I really didnt like it that much.
Then I started looking around..OMG what a difference.
The point I am making is that I think the majority of MMORPG players dont KNOW that they actually like XYZ style games because they have never played them
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I'm not afraid of anything. I'm increasingly annoyed how posters of questionable intellect state day in day out how SWTOR, WAR, AoC or any other AAA MMORPG failed because "people want sandboxes". Which is an outrageous claim without any shred of proof. The only, the only major sandox is Eve Online and it is dwarfed by even the supposedly failed themeparks.
Those themeparks failed because they suck as games. The post-WoW themepark simply is badly designed. What is the main thing people do in these themeparks? Why it is questing of course. You hit tab to target some static monster, hit some hotkeys and it dies. Do it 9 more times and you get to turn in a quest. Then, follow that format a few thousand times and you get to a level cap. How is that even remotely fun? The only possible answer is that people get addicted to the idea of progression and will do all sorts of boring shit in order to get more progression. So many Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addicts... Once people come to their senses and realize that what they are doing is boring, they quit. Or they simply run out of fish biscuits and quit. WoW has the most fish biscuits so it keeps the most players.
The comment about EVE above is BS. EVE has over 400k subscribers, which is more than any of those games you have listed. And no, EA lies don't count. SWTOR does not have 1.3 million subscribers. Considering how empty their servers divided by how much SWTOR sucks as a game, and you have probably 300k subscribers at most.
Any sort of WoW clone themepark isn't getting my money, I refuse to do boring shit for fish biscuits. I find sandbox games entertaining and would no doubt buy and sub to a well made sandbox. Sandbox players don't really have any options besides EVE as there are serious issues with the current crop of indie sandboxes. Hell, I will even settle for a themepark that doesn't suck. GW2 seems to be pretty anti fish biscuit so I can support that. I don't see developing a sandbox being a huge risk though, a huge risk is making these expensive themepark games that completely suck. Good riddance Bioware/EA. You deserve everything that is happening for making such a bad game.
When enough themeparks have failed we will get some real sandboxes and then we will know for sure if that is what players want.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now! I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
You don't "prove" its existence at all. Curious to feel that someone needs to.
The sheer number of people disagreeing with the op should provide sufficient evidence that some kind of market potential does exist...even if it's only limited to people who visit this site.
Beyond that, it's quibbling over what "massive" means, exactly.
That would be true if these forums didn't have an abnormal concentration of sandbox players. MMORPG.com forum community does not portray the MMORPG community as a whole. Then there's the "silence of the majority/moderate": Most people who visit these forums do not post and often those who do post have extreme views.
Why do you think that these forums have an "abnormal concentration of sandbox players"?
Comments
I'm not afraid of anything. I'm increasingly annoyed how posters of questionable intellect state day in day out how SWTOR, WAR, AoC or any other AAA MMORPG failed because "people want sandboxes". Which is an outrageous claim without any shred of proof. The only, the only major sandox is Eve Online and it is dwarfed by even the supposedly failed themeparks.
These same people grasp anything an turn it into an argument towards sandboxes - rational or irrational, relevant or irrelevant. When something is against their agenda they dismiss it or try to discredit the source. They use the word "freedom" like a punchline, a rallying cry, and imply that everyone who raises issues with the sandbox design as against freedom and the anti-christ. Stupid North American politics, I'm sorry, but thats what it is.
Even in this thread, for a people who claim to be superior to the themepark crowd, 4 out of 5 comments are surprisingly immature. I appreciate all the good responses and the debate we've been having with few posters, but this thread also shows the community's darker side which is usually linked with the "themepark crowd" as some may call it. Like they are some sort of rabble among the sandbox playing master-race. Yes, you have to only make a volatile thread to show that no one is better than the other.
The whole notion that sandboxes somehow require a refined taste. Like its some vintage wine or something? Bullshit. Complete and utter garbage. There are people who love sandboxes their first time of playing and there are people who grow out of them. There is nothing special about them. They have a different flavor, but neither game type is inherently superior. It only seems that the demand and popularity of themepark MMORPGs is much greater than that of sandboxes.
The point of this thread was touched multiple times in this thread. For example Icewhite hit the nail:
"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."
I only put up the initial statement as to invite people to prove it wrong.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
When all else fails...call your opponents stupid
.
But really...I don't think those games failed because people want sandboxes. I think those games failed because they were uninspired WoW clones (SWTOR), and/or had game crippling issues at release (AoC).
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Sanya Weathers stated that it takes a minimum of $10 million to create a minimal MMORPG. Jake Soong (of ArcheAge) is spending $25 million to build ArcheAge. Rift cost something like $50 million. $25 million for an entry level sandbox MMORPG sounds like a good figure to me.
We'd have to ask the Perpetuum guys what it takes to make a sandbox MMORPG with no character avatar features.
** edit **
Entry level AAA sandbox MMORPG.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Wow, that's a post pyramid there. If something can't be quantified, does it really matter if it actually exists? It amounts to the same thing. The audience may exist, but it's just like it doesn't exist.
Now you assume it -can't- be quantified? Of course it can, just try to quantify it by making a game that should appeal to that target demographic. You are running logical circles around the subject. Markets don't appear one day out of nowhere, markets are -made-. If you wait for markets to pop into existence and then try to jump on the bandwaggon, you are doing free market economy wrong. In 2008 there was no market for small social bite-sized games centered around farming, Zynga created that market a year later. In 2003 there was no market for MMORPGs, Blizzard came and created a market. In 2001 there was no market for tablets. In 1996 there was no market for motion controls. etc. There is always "no market for X" until someone creates it with a superior product.
The $25 million dollars it would cost to create a sandbox targeted to Western MMORPG players seems like a fairly large road block. In all the examples above, there was some quantifiable reason to believe that the markets existed. They didn't put millions or billions of dollars into the development of tablets without some evidence they could present to financial backers that the market existed. That's the kind of evidence that's needed for AAA sandbox games to receive money for development.
AND THERE IS.
Single-player sandbox games.
Just as there was a quantifiable reason to make smartphones as evidenced by palmtops and just as there was the PowerGlove before the Wii.
This is now slowly turning into a religious discussion, where you will hold your position no matter what kind of evidence i bring up by just repeating yourself.
It's not a religious thing. Playing a single player game is very different from playing a multi-9player game. Minecraft is a very good example of this. If you play Minecraft in single player mode, as most mc players do, it is substantially different from playing with your friends and playing with up to 200 strangers is even more different still. The rules and the game itself is exactly the same, but the game play is completely different.
This is why I don't see single player sandbox games as a good indicator of sandbox mmorpg appeal. If the game play felt nearly the same or even similar, then yeah, I could see it. It doesn't though. It's like playing a completely different game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I'm not talking about you. You're not one of those people I speak of. But there really isn't no other way to describe the people I am talkign about.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I beg your pardon?
You have been debating about the Feature of being able to use the "sand" aka, alteringthe world, or authoring etc, as the Core element of determining if a Game is a Sandbox or not, and now you are trying to turn that on me?
No sorry Axe, respect your input but I will not accept you to turn tables like that, if you changed your mind about your view of Sandbox just admit it. Ok?
It is OK to be wrong it is also OK to change one;s mind, this is not a place to for notoriety, it is a place of discussion. We can all be wrong from time to time and it is fine.
Building houses and altering the world if it is part of the Core features which makes up the Core gameplay remains nevertheless a Feature, the Core gameplay is non linear and freeform Gameplay where the player decide their own goals within the game.
So, the core gameplay of a Sandbox is characterized by non linearity and lack of direction, and the core gameplay of a Themepark is characterised by linearity and direction.
Anything else is part of the list of features a Designer chooses to include in their game. And both types can intermix these features.
Vanguard is a themepark even if it has Housing, at "endgame" too, actually the notion of "endgame" implies a destination and that there was a path a direction in order to arrive at it. And it is pretty much a term associated with themepark designs, a Sandbox never had an "endgame", because such a destination cannot be predicted by the design itself since the player is free to make that decision.
And STO is also a themepark even if players can Author their own Content.
Cheers!
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Well, I suppose that means me, for example.
You know, we've tried to explain our reasoning many times for those comments around here. And several times to you specifically. But like any good themepark hard-on'er, you simply refuse to accept our reasoning without any reason other than "you're stupid".
If there's one thing that gets me the most, and proves the hardheaded block you themepark hard-on'ers put up, it's that we use a simple and very general term like "sandbox", and instead of ever considering that we might mean what we've said we mean, you themepark hard-on'ers jump into a long and conversation killing epic journey to tell us what we meant. Why doncha just listen to us and debate the merits of what we mean instead of the limitations of what words we choose?
Here's a new one for you.....
Themepark games = a home for the criminally insanely boringly duplicitous haters of anything more in-depth than monumentally monotonously reptitively honing to the brain center for finite captivity of one brain cell, likely the only one residing in-head.
That's my new meaning for that term, mmmkay? From now on, when I say "themepark" I mean that, because I'd rather not type out that whole thing every time. Just to be clear.
Once upon a time....
eve was fun for awhile, but after awhile you figure out that it's just a pretty, space farmville with combat. You set up your skills, go farm some asteroids or pirates or whatever, log off and come back when skills are trained. There might be a couple of pvp moments in there somewhere, but today almost noone has massive warfare like there used to be. Haven't seen a pvp battle where people were dropping from lag in a loooong time.
Eve wasn't really a real sandbox anyways. Real sandboxes include a box with sand in it. players build the castles and moats...that's where the term came from :P
I will tell you what I mean.....games like SWG are unwanted by most MMO players. There is a devout group of individuals that wanna play a game like SWG, but in the overall scheme their numbers are puny.
Saying "folks like Skyrim so that proves they want a MMO sandbox" is totally off base. Accept it or not, but the games some of you enjoy just arent being made cause they dont play the bills.
I hope you guys enjoy AA. Being made in Korea, that game is being produced for pennies on the dollar vs a similar game made in the states. Song is getting major bang for his investment buck. Perhaps it will be a mega hit, but more than likely it will be another sandbox MMO with a poor showing for western subs.
I really dont care either way, cause I think everyone should have games they like, and posters here like Loke n Kyleran are good chaps. That said, dont sit there and tell us you guys are bringing as much money/customers to the table as the themepark crowd, cause it simply isnt true. If it was, more devs would be making them.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
i do not disagree with you about EVE, except the fact that you can build Castles and moats in EVE in the form of Stations and StarBases with all the facilities to support them including the Logistics. Conquer territory and engage in politics, but this gameplay is not accessible to new players, and the worse part of EVE is its Skill System and the way it is setup.
If it was based on player actions as UO EVE would be much more exciting 3 fold....but its progression is in fact, albeit well hidden because of all the other features...Directed by the design, it is why despite its sanbox focus on 0 sec, I see it as a not quite Sandbox game.
As for the larger discussion on Sanbox...yes Litearally Taken the term means a Box with Sand...
BUT, both the term Sandbox and Themepark are used as an Analogy when one describes a given game Design, and that is I think another issue in all of this debate.
In my view, whomever used first these terms wanted to express the Difference between their design and another design, in that one was Linear and Directed (Themepark), and the other was non linear and Freeform (Sandbox)....
The analogy really ends there...
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
My point all along is that a themepark game plays like a themepark game, even if it has sandbox features. And that's the case, I fear, with AA. If it does well, it will be because it's a great themepark game a la WoW, plus the sandbox features to give it that extra something that themepark players are looking for. I don't think it will be as good at themepark as WoW, and I further think that it will feel disconnected to either themepark or sandbox. For all the players who are now looking for sandbox, and this includes the many, many, who don't realize it yet (because they've never known what a good sandbox could be like), it still won't really satisfy that desire for "something different".
That's just my impressions about ArchAge at this point, we all need to see more to really know what it's like.
And this was the problem with SWG too. It was a little of both, and failed to really capture a place that felt quite right. It was sandbox, but then it played too much like themepark because of the "level grind" aspect of it's skill system, but more importantly it's items and craft system.
As far as bringing money to the table, when a great sandbox game is made, and doesn't compromise, you'll see the money. But of course I can't prove that. However, the industry is proving time and time again that themepark games are no longer bringing it either. And I don't want to hear about TOR and it's "current" 1.4 mil subs, because that number is old and based on free time, and the drop off has continued like someone threw a skunk into the room.
Once upon a time....
Name an achievable, quantifiable indicator that -you- would accept for appeal.
I.e. What would i need to present that you would accept as an argument.
If you say "a popular sandbox" im going to shoot a puppy.
Boy, it's a good thing I like puppies.
Anyway, Minecraft has come up a couple of times, but what gets said is, "A lot of people play Minecraft" and then something vague is added about the multi-player option. As a statement used to show proof of the sandbox audience, it really sucks. It's just bad.
However, if you run a Bukkit server, and you want people to know about your server, you run a plugin called "MineQuery". The name has changed, but that's what the plugin file is called. Anyway, people can query servers with this plugin and see how many people your server supports and how many people are logged into the server. There's even a website that keeps up with everyone who wants to register there. Actual proof would start with someone quantifying the people who have registered there servers, the number of available spaces for people to play and the number of people who are concurrently logged in.
There are about 8,000 servers online right now. There's no way to get an average server size, but they range from 50 to 600. Because of memory constraints and bandwidth constraints, most of them probably have between 100 and 200 open slots. So that's between 800,000 and 1,600,000 available player slots. You'd have to talk to the people running the site to get a count of concurrent players, and you'd have to talk them into modifying the plugin to get a total list of unique players. You'd also have to break the results down between servers that are Creative only, Survival only, Hardcore mode and servers that exist solely as match based PvP servers as well, but I'm sure the MineQuery plugin could report that kind of information if it was updated to do so.
A significant number of people playing a primarily single player game as a multiplayer and sometimes MMORPG-like game using nothing but community written code. The community took it upon themselves to do this. That would be quantified proof.
I am lazy and I don't have any real interest in doing this myself, but it certainly seems possible to me. Surveys of Skyrim players might be good too.
** edit **
You really have no idea how hard it was to not say, "A popular sandbox MMORPG". Really. Stuff like that drives my wife bugsh!t and gets me in trouble all the time.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
See Creslin understands why SWTOR failed, he understands why AoC failed. You? You claim that they failed because players secretly want to play sandboxes.
You imply that adding sandbox features to any game makes it better or deeper somehow. Just like you seem to think that making a MMORPG out of any RPG makes it automatically better. Both claims just are not true.
Go ahead and think of Skyrim as a MMORPG. Scaling wouldn't work. Random encounters wouldn't work or would be exploited. Quests would have to be made static in order to accomodate multiple player characters. The character advancement system would have to be revamped and balanced. How about PvP rules and how those fit your immersion? The more you think about it the worse it sounds. The game would be only a shell of its single player self. The lead designer of Skyrim refused to make an ES MMORPG, said something like "they were meant to be single player games". Now someone else is making it - cashing in on the franchise.
You do not prove the existence of an AAA sandbox viable community by taking examples from single player games because the transformation means more than just "adding multiplayer".
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
You don't "prove" its existence at all. Curious to feel that someone needs to.
The sheer number of people disagreeing with the op should provide sufficient evidence that some kind of market potential does exist...even if it's only limited to people who visit this site.
Beyond that, it's quibbling over what "massive" means, exactly.
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.
Minus the China region of course
I think at its heart the mmoRPG fans are not only a small portion of the population that plays mmorpgs these days but i think a large portion of these RPG fans would love a high quality throwback to the days of UO before the easy mode and AC ect.
I think that theres FAR too many gamers involved with mmoRPG's that HATE RPG games...and you see a lot of the issues these people have involve with things not being eared quick enough or easy enough.
mmorpgs started trending away from what an RPG was all about some time after 2004, and started to turn into action game merry-go rounds that removed and thought/difficulty/choice from the progression path and made the object of the game repeatedly running instanced mini-games in the form of raids and pvp and the main objective.
Now you look at games and more is talked about "balance" which means "mow accurately does the game recreate a FPS style death match in terms of everyones the same"...balance wasnt suppose to be in the equation with mmorpgs you balance by adding a warrior to your mage/priest/rogue group...thats balance in a rpg.
I really think that if the masses of players that dont realize that the RPG aspect of the games they play are the root of their qualms, and possibly move on to other online games, only then can we get back to games that are meant for the smaller RPG crowd, the ones that want a complex progression with chioces, ones who want a high quality sandbox ect.
The only real sandbox out there thats decently made and modern is Darkfall and its full of FPS players who dont want any progression just a full loot deathmatch. The same people who scared away any player who would have enjoyed the games solid pve. The rest of the sandboxes anre ancient and modified beyond recognition or crappy post-launch alphas that cant get the basics to function.
Also citing games that launch as unfinished unstable barely funcioning games, and happen to be sandbox, is not proof positive that sandboxes fail...you launch a themepark under the same conditions and you get Alganon, any game launched like that fails.
That would be true if these forums didn't have an abnormal concentration of sandbox players. MMORPG.com forum community does not portray the MMORPG community as a whole. Then there's the "silence of the majority/moderate": Most people who visit these forums do not post and often those who do post have extreme views.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
It just proves my point that what people really want is just a professionally made game.
A tripple-A game. Everything else doesn't matter.
Inb4 graphics, its not just the graphics.
Lets take my personal story as an example.
In the past I wouldnt consider indie games thinking to myself 'well clearly it cant be as good as the mainstream games I will keep my option to those games that have filtered to the top of the PR machine to make my life simple'
So I played EQ2, and I really didnt like it that much.
Then I started looking around..OMG what a difference.
The point I am making is that I think the majority of MMORPG players dont KNOW that they actually like XYZ style games because they have never played them
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Those themeparks failed because they suck as games. The post-WoW themepark simply is badly designed. What is the main thing people do in these themeparks? Why it is questing of course. You hit tab to target some static monster, hit some hotkeys and it dies. Do it 9 more times and you get to turn in a quest. Then, follow that format a few thousand times and you get to a level cap. How is that even remotely fun? The only possible answer is that people get addicted to the idea of progression and will do all sorts of boring shit in order to get more progression. So many Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addicts... Once people come to their senses and realize that what they are doing is boring, they quit. Or they simply run out of fish biscuits and quit. WoW has the most fish biscuits so it keeps the most players.
The comment about EVE above is BS. EVE has over 400k subscribers, which is more than any of those games you have listed. And no, EA lies don't count. SWTOR does not have 1.3 million subscribers. Considering how empty their servers divided by how much SWTOR sucks as a game, and you have probably 300k subscribers at most.
Any sort of WoW clone themepark isn't getting my money, I refuse to do boring shit for fish biscuits. I find sandbox games entertaining and would no doubt buy and sub to a well made sandbox. Sandbox players don't really have any options besides EVE as there are serious issues with the current crop of indie sandboxes. Hell, I will even settle for a themepark that doesn't suck. GW2 seems to be pretty anti fish biscuit so I can support that. I don't see developing a sandbox being a huge risk though, a huge risk is making these expensive themepark games that completely suck. Good riddance Bioware/EA. You deserve everything that is happening for making such a bad game.
When enough themeparks have failed we will get some real sandboxes and then we will know for sure if that is what players want.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now!
I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
Why do you think that these forums have an "abnormal concentration of sandbox players"?
Once upon a time....