My boyfriend would love a game with old school Everquest tendecies and new graphics/technology because he missed playing Everquest 1 entirely during its era. I loved playing that game, and wish they'd make a new game like it and Star Wars Galaxies...
However, like my boyfriend most old fashioned old school sandbox fans quit playing mmos entirely, so only the new kids play the theme parks that we get, and the rest of them have to be shown a proven successful sandbox, because they have now lost all faith in the mmo/video game industry entirely. They no longer jump at new games, and believe every game ever released to be the same old boring clone mmo that they have already played.
Star Trek and Star Wars both failed, so he won't give Final Fantasy 14: A Realm Reborn a chance, and tries to find good pc strategy one player games, without success, as all of the good games (like Detroit, Railroads, Sim City 4 <new one he says isn't the same>, and Sim Farm <the one I miss> ) are no longer being created.
It's a shame, that now we have more mmos than ever, but they are all theme parks... we lost a lot of the the in-depth customization freedom that we once had... or the social communities that we once had... people seemed so friendly and kind on SWG, and the player cities were awesome!
So let me get this right... you will take anything handed to you, no matter how bad, because its popular? Well, I guess that explains why Lindsey Lohan and Miley Cyrus are in the news then. Makes me sad for the human race. It also explains why other countries are surpassing this one in every way but money.
You don't seem to have gotten it right.
Businesses invest in product development relative to perceived upside: Products with big audiences receive big budgets (and vice-versa.) This doesn't mean niche products aren't made, only that they will inevitably have smaller budgets (small audience = small budget.)
After those products are created, the one I "take" is the product which is most closely aligned with my own interests.
And?
Why can't a good game, with more than just linear game play and pvp and pretty graphics make money, exactly? Oh wait... it can. It just takes longer to develop, but these greedy companies want immediate pay offs. The thing is, that kind of mind set is going to bring about the end of MMORPG's. It's only a matter of time. There's a reason people keep jumping from game to game. Because sometimes you want some meat on those bones.
Clearly the big boys want my play-time. Otherwise why would I even be here talking about MMORGPs? They may not want my money though. Otherwise, why would they beg me to play for free?
That's exactly what Im saying. We are in total agreement.
Im referring to those that are no longer satisfied with mmorpgs but used to love them, including myself, when I say "our' money.
I think you would even agree that mmorpg makers no longer want that audience or their money.
There will always be games on the horizon. You'd probably move along due to lack of interest if there weren't.
True, but the cycle is always the same. Some people look at something on the horizon, declare that it will be the best game ever, it comes out, they decide it sucks, scream and cry about how bad it is and identify a new game on the horizon to be the best game ever.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
I wonder, is the defeatist cycle ("everything sucks, all the good games are gone, woe is me" lather, rinse, repeat.) any better?
Same thing; just waiting for new games to come out so they, too, can declare it sucks.
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.
There will always be games on the horizon. You'd probably move along due to lack of interest if there weren't.
True, but the cycle is always the same. Some people look at something on the horizon, declare that it will be the best game ever, it comes out, they decide it sucks, scream and cry about how bad it is and identify a new game on the horizon to be the best game ever.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
I wonder, is the defeatist cycle ("everything sucks, all the good games are gone, woe is me" lather, rinse, repeat.) any better?
Same thing; just waiting for new games to come out so they, too, can declare it sucks.
The narrator's cycle is much better?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Originally posted by Scot I am not sure you are referring to me, perhaps you could point out where I am going wrong? If modern MMOs are full of niche genres and not one huge mish mash, please tell me the names of all these niche MMOs? If modern MMOs are retaining most players beyond the 2 to 3 month point, do tell us which ones. Gaming company senior figures have expressed their concern about how this model is effecting their companies. Put yourself in their shoes. If you were on the staff of a company that only employed you for one or two years and then you had to look for another game to work on would you stick with that as a career for life?
Earthrise, Eve, Darkfall ....
Who says a company has to make only one game? Who says a company cannot keep making 3 months game? A long career does not equate working on only one game.
Two of the games you listed were made years ago, the inability of MMOs to hang on to players was an issue then but its at its most exacerbated now. The small number of such niche MMO's when compared to the every increasing numbers of MMO's based on one template shows the disparity I was talking about.
No company has to make one game. As long as each 3 month game coming out is a success then the company is fine. But that is also the issue, each three month game which take a lot longer than three months to produce has to do well. But don't take my word for it, one of the industry insiders who questioned this model was in a link you posted a couple of months back, check it out.
Originally posted by Scot I am not sure you are referring to me, perhaps you could point out where I am going wrong? If modern MMOs are full of niche genres and not one huge mish mash, please tell me the names of all these niche MMOs? If modern MMOs are retaining most players beyond the 2 to 3 month point, do tell us which ones. Gaming company senior figures have expressed their concern about how this model is effecting their companies. Put yourself in their shoes. If you were on the staff of a company that only employed you for one or two years and then you had to look for another game to work on would you stick with that as a career for life?
Are you kidding? I would love to work on a completely new game every two years! That would be a dream job.
You don't dictate the standards for MMOs and you can't use a 10-year-old measuring stick to do it. The market and the industry are drastically different from those days. Have you even considered that sticking to one game for years is a thing of the past? That we will likely never see such games again. Its not a good thing or a bad thing. Its just how things are. For your sake, you should change with the times.
Turns out in another thread, Holophonist was in favor of innovation only when it suited him. I would also bet all my Internet coins that you would be hypocritical enough not to complain if your preferred style of MMOs returned as the mainstream niche.
Why can't you just quietly accept that you belong in a minority without any mud slinging? Why do you have the need to point fingers and demean the people who don't share your preferences?
For a self-proclaimed social and friendly community, the old-schoolers are portraying quite a different image outward.
Before I make any other response to this can you explain to me why my posts have left you feeling demeaned? I think you are using such language purely to shut down the opposition to your point of view. You do not strike me as a shy wallflower, so can you tell us how your sensibilities have been damaged by what I have said?
I absolutely don't agree. The player marketplace is not the same today as it was back then. People need to stop pretending that it is. As soon as MMOs went mainstream, the old-school players were completely dwarfed by the incoming mainstream playerbase. There just aren't enough old-school players to make that kind of game financially viable anymore.
The genie is out of the bottle, it's never going to go back in, no matter how many people wish it would happen.
Yet, new MMOs that cater to the same old crap with big budgets (like SW:TOR) just fail to meet expectation?
No one is asking for a block buster or a WoW kind of success.
There IS a market for "old school" people but it's not a 50 million potential players. When was the last time you've seen an MMO that manage to retain more than 500,000 monthly players besides WoW and Asian MMOs? And now we see this FTP crappy trend.
Again, doing the same Quest Grind, Boring Itemization, Instanced game experience which was repeated to death will guarantee failure. (See all major MMO releases the last 6 years). I guarantee you a niche game (which doesn't play like the current MMORPGs) but brings back the World Simulation experience and the kind of adventure where having players around mean something besides just running around for no apparent reason... that kind of game will have an audience.
Actually, since there are no other competitors to scratch THAT itch everyone's been crying for... the game is more likely going to succeed than delving in a saturated market with zillions of FTP "MMORPGs".
Why can't a good game, with more than just linear game play and pvp and pretty graphics make money, exactly? Oh wait... it can. It just takes longer to develop, but these greedy companies want immediate pay offs. The thing is, that kind of mind set is going to bring about the end of MMORPG's. It's only a matter of time. There's a reason people keep jumping from game to game. Because sometimes you want some meat on those bones.
Of course good games make money, but we're reflecting back on Old MMORPGs, which weren't good games. They had some traits which could be polished up with modern sensibilities, but the old atmosphere of high-timesink for low-gameplay and big inconveniences all dramatically reduced the potential audience.
"Longer to develop" is the exact same as "bigger budget game". Which again is going to be driven by the expected audience size for a game.
As for immediate payoffs, that's a separate issue. A game which manages to successfully be fun long-term will be substantially more profitable long-term.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Are you kidding? I would love to work on a completely new game every two years! That would be a dream job.
You don't dictate the standards for MMOs and you can't use a 10-year-old measuring stick to do it. The market and the industry are drastically different from those days. Have you even considered that sticking to one game for years is a thing of the past? That we will likely never see such games again. Its not a good thing or a bad thing. Its just how things are. For your sake, you should change with the times.
Turns out in another thread, Holophonist was in favor of innovation only when it suited him. I would also bet all my Internet coins that you would be hypocritical enough not to complain if your preferred style of MMOs returned as the mainstream niche.
Why can't you just quietly accept that you belong in a minority without any mud slinging? Why do you have the need to point fingers and demean the people who don't share your preferences?
For a self-proclaimed social and friendly community, the old-schoolers are portraying quite a different image outward.
Before I make any other response to this can you explain to me why my posts have left you feeling demeaned? I think you are using such language purely to shut down the opposition to your point of view. You do not strike me as a shy wallflower, so can you tell us how your sensibilities have been damaged by what I have said?
You are right, I don't have a horse in the race but I am quite fed up people suggest they know better than anyone else or their tastes are somehow more refined than anyone else's. Or implying developers are clueless, greedy or lazy just because they don't happen to serve their preferences. There's also an awful lot of ignorance regarding the market and business. Too many armchair generals.
If I had an agenda, it would be to promote new games. Not "new old games" - entirely new games. I am for good games of all kind, but generally I get labelled a "themepark lover" or "WoW fanboy" which is funny because I played WoW for a whole 20 minutes in its closed beta.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Are you kidding? I would love to work on a completely new game every two years! That would be a dream job.
You don't dictate the standards for MMOs and you can't use a 10-year-old measuring stick to do it. The market and the industry are drastically different from those days. Have you even considered that sticking to one game for years is a thing of the past? That we will likely never see such games again. Its not a good thing or a bad thing. Its just how things are. For your sake, you should change with the times.
Turns out in another thread, Holophonist was in favor of innovation only when it suited him. I would also bet all my Internet coins that you would be hypocritical enough not to complain if your preferred style of MMOs returned as the mainstream niche.
Why can't you just quietly accept that you belong in a minority without any mud slinging? Why do you have the need to point fingers and demean the people who don't share your preferences?
For a self-proclaimed social and friendly community, the old-schoolers are portraying quite a different image outward.
Before I make any other response to this can you explain to me why my posts have left you feeling demeaned? I think you are using such language purely to shut down the opposition to your point of view. You do not strike me as a shy wallflower, so can you tell us how your sensibilities have been damaged by what I have said?
You are right, I don't have a horse in the race but I am quite fed up people suggest they know better than anyone else or their tastes are somehow more refined than anyone else's. Or implying developers are clueless, greedy or lazy just because they don't happen to serve their preferences. There's also an awful lot of ignorance regarding the market and business. Too many armchair generals.
If I had an agenda, it would be to promote new games. Not "new old games" - entirely new games. I am for good games of all kind, but generally I get labelled a "themepark lover" or "WoW fanboy" which is funny because I played WoW for a whole 20 minutes in its closed beta.
And I'm sick of people (you) acting like all opinions and tastes are equal. They aren't. There is such a thing as objective quality, it's just not easy to measure. But let me put it this way: The average sandbox player has more knowledge of themeparks than the average themepark player has of sandboxes. Most of us prefer sandboxes and "oldschool style" games because we've played BOTH and and have been disappointed by themeparks over and over. I highly doubt the 10+ million WoW players can say the same. This whole "it's my preference and you can't criticize it or analyze it in any way!" stance is such garbage.
Also I'm sick of people acting like greed has nothing to do with developers' decisions on what kind of game to make. You say that you don't like people implying that developers are greedy... are you saying they're not? This is just so typical you: criticize somebody's position without having the ability to argue against it.
No company has to make one game. As long as each 3 month game coming out is a success then the company is fine. But that is also the issue, each three month game which take a lot longer than three months to produce has to do well. But don't take my word for it, one of the industry insiders who questioned this model was in a link you posted a couple of months back, check it out.
No it is not. No one says they have to have a new game all the time. Look at CoD. It is a 3 month (or a lot less) game for many. Do they release one COD every 3 month? Of course not.
The point is to be successful enough to cover the cost of the next game. Look at Blizz. D3 sold 12M+ boxes. That is $700+M. Even if they make D3 a 1 week game (which it is not), with that kind of sales, they can make one every 12 years (which they do) and they still come out ahead.
Originally posted by Quirhid An interesting metaphor.
People just need to be reminded from time to time that they're consumers. We don't get to tell Ford what features to put on next year's model, no matter how interested you are in it, or how many hours you devote to talking about it and analyzing it in great detail.Buy one, or not. That's the extent of your powers.Oh, you can write Ford lots of letters, and try to make your opinions well known. But they aren't obligated to consider your purchase (or wishes) as binding on future Fords. And they're certainly not obligated to revive the Model T again, no matter how much you loved it.(They do come out with Mustang reboots, pretty regularly, but we don't like talking about the Mustang II.)
ah... yet Ford does not get rid of less popular features, do they? They just charge an arm and a leg for them
Think if Ford decided to only have features that "the majority" wanted. How would that fly?
Who wants to drive a manual these days? Who does not want air conditioning? Why is cruise control still optional and not standard? What if Ford offered ONLY the most popular features with no options at all? And not only Ford, but EVERY car manufacturer? Heck, why even have different models of cars for sale when it is obvious that "most people" want only one kind.
This seems to be the overriding attitude of developers/publishers these days.
I DO agree that we don't get to tell any business how to run their business, but we can let them know what we, as consumers, want, can't we?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
And I'm sick of people (you) acting like all opinions and tastes are equal. They aren't. There is such a thing as objective quality, it's just not easy to measure. But let me put it this way: The average sandbox player has more knowledge of themeparks than the average themepark player has of sandboxes. Most of us prefer sandboxes and "oldschool style" games because we've played BOTH and and have been disappointed by themeparks over and over. I highly doubt the 10+ million WoW players can say the same. This whole "it's my preference and you can't criticize it or analyze it in any way!" stance is such garbage.
Also I'm sick of people acting like greed has nothing to do with developers' decisions on what kind of game to make. You say that you don't like people implying that developers are greedy... are you saying they're not? This is just so typical you: criticize somebody's position without having the ability to argue against it.
How do you know your opinion is better than mine?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
No company has to make one game. As long as each 3 month game coming out is a success then the company is fine. But that is also the issue, each three month game which take a lot longer than three months to produce has to do well. But don't take my word for it, one of the industry insiders who questioned this model was in a link you posted a couple of months back, check it out.
No it is not. No one says they have to have a new game all the time. Look at CoD. It is a 3 month (or a lot less) game for many. Do they release one COD every 3 month? Of course not.
The point is to be successful enough to cover the cost of the next game. Look at Blizz. D3 sold 12M+ boxes. That is $700+M. Even if they make D3 a 1 week game (which it is not), with that kind of sales, they can make one every 12 years (which they do) and they still come out ahead.
Long game is not needed to be successful.
Indeed. GTA V has content for less than 50 hours. Is it a bad game?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Why can't a good game, with more than just linear game play and pvp and pretty graphics make money, exactly? Oh wait... it can. It just takes longer to develop, but these greedy companies want immediate pay offs. The thing is, that kind of mind set is going to bring about the end of MMORPG's. It's only a matter of time. There's a reason people keep jumping from game to game. Because sometimes you want some meat on those bones.
Of course good games make money, but we're reflecting back on Old MMORPGs, which weren't good games. They had some traits which could be polished up with modern sensibilities, but the old atmosphere of high-timesink for low-gameplay and big inconveniences all dramatically reduced the potential audience.
"Longer to develop" is the exact same as "bigger budget game". Which again is going to be driven by the expected audience size for a game.
As for immediate payoffs, that's a separate issue. A game which manages to successfully be fun long-term will be substantially more profitable long-term.
Except they WERE good games or people wouldn't still be playing them. You do realize that people get disatisfied with what their playing and go back to their old games right? There's a reason most of them haven't been shut down yet.
Except they WERE good games or people wouldn't still be playing them. You do realize that people get disatisfied with what their playing and go back to their old games right? There's a reason most of them haven't been shut down yet.
Wow, you are all stretching to make excuses.
No. "Good" is subjective.
At best you can say some small number of players (those who still play) think that they are still "good" games. I certainly don't.
ah... yet Ford does not get rid of less popular features, do they? They just charge an arm and a leg for them
Not the ones that don't have enough demand.
Yes they do. They charge much more for those options. The in-house after market guys make loads of money with those very "less popular" options.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
ah... yet Ford does not get rid of less popular features, do they? They just charge an arm and a leg for them
Not the ones that don't have enough demand.
Yes they do. They charge much more for those options. The in-house after market guys make loads of money with those very "less popular" options.
You still make no money, no matter how much you charge, if too few are buying. At the extreme case where no one is buying, it does not help if you jack up the price to infinity.
Originally posted by MoiraeAnd? Why can't a good game, with more than just linear game play and pvp and pretty graphics make money, exactly? Oh wait... it can. It just takes longer to develop, but these greedy companies want immediate pay offs. The thing is, that kind of mind set is going to bring about the end of MMORPG's. It's only a matter of time. There's a reason people keep jumping from game to game. Because sometimes you want some meat on those bones.
Of course good games make money, but we're reflecting back on Old MMORPGs, which weren't good games. They had some traits which could be polished up with modern sensibilities, but the old atmosphere of high-timesink for low-gameplay and big inconveniences all dramatically reduced the potential audience.
"Longer to develop" is the exact same as "bigger budget game". Which again is going to be driven by the expected audience size for a game.
As for immediate payoffs, that's a separate issue. A game which manages to successfully be fun long-term will be substantially more profitable long-term.
There literally is no evidence to support what you're saying. Marketing trends have killed all of that due emulation and risk vs. budget factor. All evidence points others wise in my opinion. My opinion is based on the fact that older games still maintain a paying player base over the long haul in the face of newer games and newer "casual" games would have long died if forced to have paying player bases. The conversations us just opinion based. Until there is a high quality game based on older game principles its all opinion based as there has not been one to test either theory.
Why can't a good game, with more than just linear game play and pvp and pretty graphics make money, exactly? Oh wait... it can. It just takes longer to develop, but these greedy companies want immediate pay offs. The thing is, that kind of mind set is going to bring about the end of MMORPG's. It's only a matter of time. There's a reason people keep jumping from game to game. Because sometimes you want some meat on those bones.
Of course good games make money, but we're reflecting back on Old MMORPGs, which weren't good games. They had some traits which could be polished up with modern sensibilities, but the old atmosphere of high-timesink for low-gameplay and big inconveniences all dramatically reduced the potential audience.
"Longer to develop" is the exact same as "bigger budget game". Which again is going to be driven by the expected audience size for a game.
As for immediate payoffs, that's a separate issue. A game which manages to successfully be fun long-term will be substantially more profitable long-term.
There literally is no evidence to support what you're saying. Marketing trends have killed all of that due emulation and risk vs. budget factor. All evidence points others wise in my opinion. My opinion is based on the fact that older games still maintain a paying player base over the long haul in the face of newer games and newer "casual" games would have long died if forced to have paying player bases. The conversations us just opinion based. Until there is a high quality game based on older game principles its all opinion based as there has not been one to test either theory.
No one is going to make the game you suggest unless there is data to support there is a sizable enough audience for it. If their data showed it was profitable, the devs would make it. After all, devs are greedy, right?
If you have data to the contrary, definitely bring it to the developer of your choice and let them see it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Originally posted by Axehilt Originally posted by MoiraeAnd? Why can't a good game, with more than just linear game play and pvp and pretty graphics make money, exactly? Oh wait... it can. It just takes longer to develop, but these greedy companies want immediate pay offs. The thing is, that kind of mind set is going to bring about the end of MMORPG's. It's only a matter of time. There's a reason people keep jumping from game to game. Because sometimes you want some meat on those bones.
Of course good games make money, but we're reflecting back on Old MMORPGs, which weren't good games. They had some traits which could be polished up with modern sensibilities, but the old atmosphere of high-timesink for low-gameplay and big inconveniences all dramatically reduced the potential audience.
"Longer to develop" is the exact same as "bigger budget game". Which again is going to be driven by the expected audience size for a game.
As for immediate payoffs, that's a separate issue. A game which manages to successfully be fun long-term will be substantially more profitable long-term.
There literally is no evidence to support what you're saying. Marketing trends have killed all of that due emulation and risk vs. budget factor. All evidence points others wise in my opinion. My opinion is based on the fact that older games still maintain a paying player base over the long haul in the face of newer games and newer "casual" games would have long died if forced to have paying player bases. The conversations us just opinion based. Until there is a high quality game based on older game principles its all opinion based as there has not been one to test either theory.
No one is going to make the game you suggest unless there is data to support there is a sizable enough audience for it. If their data showed it was profitable, the devs would make it. After all, devs are greedy, right?
If you have data to the contrary, definitely bring it to the developer of your choice and let them see it.
Again we've had emulation because of WoW. No bigger data then the wild success of WoW. Even if you see a market for a game that could support a max of 1 million players, you have WoW with a former 10 million plus base. What do you think is easier to sell to investors?
Why can't a good game, with more than just linear game play and pvp and pretty graphics make money, exactly? Oh wait... it can. It just takes longer to develop, but these greedy companies want immediate pay offs. The thing is, that kind of mind set is going to bring about the end of MMORPG's. It's only a matter of time. There's a reason people keep jumping from game to game. Because sometimes you want some meat on those bones.
Of course good games make money, but we're reflecting back on Old MMORPGs, which weren't good games. They had some traits which could be polished up with modern sensibilities, but the old atmosphere of high-timesink for low-gameplay and big inconveniences all dramatically reduced the potential audience.
"Longer to develop" is the exact same as "bigger budget game". Which again is going to be driven by the expected audience size for a game.
As for immediate payoffs, that's a separate issue. A game which manages to successfully be fun long-term will be substantially more profitable long-term.
There literally is no evidence to support what you're saying. Marketing trends have killed all of that due emulation and risk vs. budget factor. All evidence points others wise in my opinion. My opinion is based on the fact that older games still maintain a paying player base over the long haul in the face of newer games and newer "casual" games would have long died if forced to have paying player bases. The conversations us just opinion based. Until there is a high quality game based on older game principles its all opinion based as there has not been one to test either theory.
No one is going to make the game you suggest unless there is data to support there is a sizable enough audience for it. If their data showed it was profitable, the devs would make it. After all, devs are greedy, right?
If you have data to the contrary, definitely bring it to the developer of your choice and let them see it.
Plenty of data available. 20 million and growing for star citizen. Data doesn't get any better than that.
What data do you think Bioware used to make their space game?
Which data would you want as a developer? As a gamer what data do you want devs to use?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
No one is going to make the game you suggest unless there is data to support there is a sizable enough audience for it. If their data showed it was profitable, the devs would make it. After all, devs are greedy, right?
If you have data to the contrary, definitely bring it to the developer of your choice and let them see it.
Plenty of data available. 20 million and growing for star citizen. Data doesn't get any better than that.
What data do you think Bioware used to make their space game?
Which data would you want as a developer? As a gamer what data do you want devs to use?
Are you seriously asking that or are you deliberately obtuse?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Comments
My boyfriend would love a game with old school Everquest tendecies and new graphics/technology because he missed playing Everquest 1 entirely during its era. I loved playing that game, and wish they'd make a new game like it and Star Wars Galaxies...
However, like my boyfriend most old fashioned old school sandbox fans quit playing mmos entirely, so only the new kids play the theme parks that we get, and the rest of them have to be shown a proven successful sandbox, because they have now lost all faith in the mmo/video game industry entirely. They no longer jump at new games, and believe every game ever released to be the same old boring clone mmo that they have already played.
Star Trek and Star Wars both failed, so he won't give Final Fantasy 14: A Realm Reborn a chance, and tries to find good pc strategy one player games, without success, as all of the good games (like Detroit, Railroads, Sim City 4 <new one he says isn't the same>, and Sim Farm <the one I miss> ) are no longer being created.
It's a shame, that now we have more mmos than ever, but they are all theme parks... we lost a lot of the the in-depth customization freedom that we once had... or the social communities that we once had... people seemed so friendly and kind on SWG, and the player cities were awesome!
And?
Why can't a good game, with more than just linear game play and pvp and pretty graphics make money, exactly? Oh wait... it can. It just takes longer to develop, but these greedy companies want immediate pay offs. The thing is, that kind of mind set is going to bring about the end of MMORPG's. It's only a matter of time. There's a reason people keep jumping from game to game. Because sometimes you want some meat on those bones.
Yeh, i agree. We are in total agreement.
I wonder, is the defeatist cycle ("everything sucks, all the good games are gone, woe is me" lather, rinse, repeat.) any better?
Same thing; just waiting for new games to come out so they, too, can declare it sucks.
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 narrator's cycle is much better?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Two of the games you listed were made years ago, the inability of MMOs to hang on to players was an issue then but its at its most exacerbated now. The small number of such niche MMO's when compared to the every increasing numbers of MMO's based on one template shows the disparity I was talking about.
No company has to make one game. As long as each 3 month game coming out is a success then the company is fine. But that is also the issue, each three month game which take a lot longer than three months to produce has to do well. But don't take my word for it, one of the industry insiders who questioned this model was in a link you posted a couple of months back, check it out.
Before I make any other response to this can you explain to me why my posts have left you feeling demeaned? I think you are using such language purely to shut down the opposition to your point of view. You do not strike me as a shy wallflower, so can you tell us how your sensibilities have been damaged by what I have said?
Yet, new MMOs that cater to the same old crap with big budgets (like SW:TOR) just fail to meet expectation?
No one is asking for a block buster or a WoW kind of success.
There IS a market for "old school" people but it's not a 50 million potential players. When was the last time you've seen an MMO that manage to retain more than 500,000 monthly players besides WoW and Asian MMOs? And now we see this FTP crappy trend.
Again, doing the same Quest Grind, Boring Itemization, Instanced game experience which was repeated to death will guarantee failure. (See all major MMO releases the last 6 years). I guarantee you a niche game (which doesn't play like the current MMORPGs) but brings back the World Simulation experience and the kind of adventure where having players around mean something besides just running around for no apparent reason... that kind of game will have an audience.
Actually, since there are no other competitors to scratch THAT itch everyone's been crying for... the game is more likely going to succeed than delving in a saturated market with zillions of FTP "MMORPGs".
Of course good games make money, but we're reflecting back on Old MMORPGs, which weren't good games. They had some traits which could be polished up with modern sensibilities, but the old atmosphere of high-timesink for low-gameplay and big inconveniences all dramatically reduced the potential audience.
"Longer to develop" is the exact same as "bigger budget game". Which again is going to be driven by the expected audience size for a game.
As for immediate payoffs, that's a separate issue. A game which manages to successfully be fun long-term will be substantially more profitable long-term.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You are right, I don't have a horse in the race but I am quite fed up people suggest they know better than anyone else or their tastes are somehow more refined than anyone else's. Or implying developers are clueless, greedy or lazy just because they don't happen to serve their preferences. There's also an awful lot of ignorance regarding the market and business. Too many armchair generals.
If I had an agenda, it would be to promote new games. Not "new old games" - entirely new games. I am for good games of all kind, but generally I get labelled a "themepark lover" or "WoW fanboy" which is funny because I played WoW for a whole 20 minutes in its closed beta.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
And I'm sick of people (you) acting like all opinions and tastes are equal. They aren't. There is such a thing as objective quality, it's just not easy to measure. But let me put it this way: The average sandbox player has more knowledge of themeparks than the average themepark player has of sandboxes. Most of us prefer sandboxes and "oldschool style" games because we've played BOTH and and have been disappointed by themeparks over and over. I highly doubt the 10+ million WoW players can say the same. This whole "it's my preference and you can't criticize it or analyze it in any way!" stance is such garbage.
Also I'm sick of people acting like greed has nothing to do with developers' decisions on what kind of game to make. You say that you don't like people implying that developers are greedy... are you saying they're not? This is just so typical you: criticize somebody's position without having the ability to argue against it.
No it is not. No one says they have to have a new game all the time. Look at CoD. It is a 3 month (or a lot less) game for many. Do they release one COD every 3 month? Of course not.
The point is to be successful enough to cover the cost of the next game. Look at Blizz. D3 sold 12M+ boxes. That is $700+M. Even if they make D3 a 1 week game (which it is not), with that kind of sales, they can make one every 12 years (which they do) and they still come out ahead.
Long game is not needed to be successful.
Think if Ford decided to only have features that "the majority" wanted. How would that fly?
Who wants to drive a manual these days? Who does not want air conditioning? Why is cruise control still optional and not standard? What if Ford offered ONLY the most popular features with no options at all? And not only Ford, but EVERY car manufacturer? Heck, why even have different models of cars for sale when it is obvious that "most people" want only one kind.
This seems to be the overriding attitude of developers/publishers these days.
I DO agree that we don't get to tell any business how to run their business, but we can let them know what we, as consumers, want, can't we?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
How do you know your opinion is better than mine?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Indeed. GTA V has content for less than 50 hours. Is it a bad game?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Not the ones that don't have enough demand.
Except they WERE good games or people wouldn't still be playing them. You do realize that people get disatisfied with what their playing and go back to their old games right? There's a reason most of them haven't been shut down yet.
Wow, you are all stretching to make excuses.
No. "Good" is subjective.
At best you can say some small number of players (those who still play) think that they are still "good" games. I certainly don't.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
You still make no money, no matter how much you charge, if too few are buying. At the extreme case where no one is buying, it does not help if you jack up the price to infinity.
Of course good games make money, but we're reflecting back on Old MMORPGs, which weren't good games. They had some traits which could be polished up with modern sensibilities, but the old atmosphere of high-timesink for low-gameplay and big inconveniences all dramatically reduced the potential audience.
"Longer to develop" is the exact same as "bigger budget game". Which again is going to be driven by the expected audience size for a game.
As for immediate payoffs, that's a separate issue. A game which manages to successfully be fun long-term will be substantially more profitable long-term.
There literally is no evidence to support what you're saying. Marketing trends have killed all of that due emulation and risk vs. budget factor. All evidence points others wise in my opinion. My opinion is based on the fact that older games still maintain a paying player base over the long haul in the face of newer games and newer "casual" games would have long died if forced to have paying player bases. The conversations us just opinion based. Until there is a high quality game based on older game principles its all opinion based as there has not been one to test either theory.No one is going to make the game you suggest unless there is data to support there is a sizable enough audience for it. If their data showed it was profitable, the devs would make it. After all, devs are greedy, right?
If you have data to the contrary, definitely bring it to the developer of your choice and let them see it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Of course good games make money, but we're reflecting back on Old MMORPGs, which weren't good games. They had some traits which could be polished up with modern sensibilities, but the old atmosphere of high-timesink for low-gameplay and big inconveniences all dramatically reduced the potential audience.
"Longer to develop" is the exact same as "bigger budget game". Which again is going to be driven by the expected audience size for a game.
As for immediate payoffs, that's a separate issue. A game which manages to successfully be fun long-term will be substantially more profitable long-term.
There literally is no evidence to support what you're saying. Marketing trends have killed all of that due emulation and risk vs. budget factor. All evidence points others wise in my opinion. My opinion is based on the fact that older games still maintain a paying player base over the long haul in the face of newer games and newer "casual" games would have long died if forced to have paying player bases. The conversations us just opinion based. Until there is a high quality game based on older game principles its all opinion based as there has not been one to test either theory.No one is going to make the game you suggest unless there is data to support there is a sizable enough audience for it. If their data showed it was profitable, the devs would make it. After all, devs are greedy, right?
If you have data to the contrary, definitely bring it to the developer of your choice and let them see it.
Again we've had emulation because of WoW. No bigger data then the wild success of WoW. Even if you see a market for a game that could support a max of 1 million players, you have WoW with a former 10 million plus base. What do you think is easier to sell to investors?Plenty of data available. 20 million and growing for star citizen. Data doesn't get any better than that.
What data do you think Bioware used to make their space game?
Which data would you want as a developer? As a gamer what data do you want devs to use?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Are you seriously asking that or are you deliberately obtuse?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky