Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal I never gave a description of investors. I'm just stating that its obvious that market trended towards the extraordinary success of WoW. Not surprising considering the risk involved in the creation of MMORPG. But until someone actually create a game with modern polish and old school MMORPG features it's all speculation it will or won't work. If these developers were perfect with their metrics and polling then so many wouldn't fail into F2P.
Your view on some of these things is a little off.
Investors may be aware of games, but they invest in developers, not games. If some no-name developer says they can make a game like Mortal Online, but good, they are not going to get any investment dollars. If a developer has created profitable games in the past and has some people who worked on MMORPGs in the past they are much more likely to get funding if they say they can make a game like Mortal Online, but good.
So, what can we take away from this? Developers and investors are the people who are most likely to know what will work and what won't. That doesn't mean they are perfect, but they certainly know more than anyone on these forums who isn't involved in the industry.
It is significant that the only people who are trying to build the "old school" games are people with little experience in MMORPGs. It is also significant that they are having to use crowd funding to build their tech demos to try and secure further funding for their games. The developers who probably could secure funding aren't looking for it, and the developers who want funding are having to prove that an "old school" game can give a reasonable return on investment. This is no mean feat given the cost of MMORPG development and the fact that every comparison between the "old school" and "new school" games shows the "new school" games retaining more players and making more money. This is still true even if WoW did not exist.
So on the one side we have people who have years of experience financing, building and yes, playing MMORPGs shying away from "old school" games, and on the other side we have people who have only played MMORPGs for years. Of the two, it seems that the people who have been involved in the industry would be the ones more likely to be right.
I think developers are starting to realize that cloning WoW doesn't work in bringing in WoW numbers. We've had the MMORPG market grow a lot and many gamers have never experienced and "old school style games." How do you truly get stats on them? Maybe they would all reject it. But we will never know if its never done.
But WoW and back games have some how managed to be subscription based for years and in the case of Eve actually grow. You then have all these games that cloned the WoW experience come out and sell and promptly bleed subscriptions until they're forced to subside the games. I wonder how a game like EvE's paying customers add up to F2P MMORPG's paying customers in numbers. Not earned but just those who find the game worth paying for.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal I never gave a description of investors. I'm just stating that its obvious that market trended towards the extraordinary success of WoW. Not surprising considering the risk involved in the creation of MMORPG. But until someone actually create a game with modern polish and old school MMORPG features it's all speculation it will or won't work. If these developers were perfect with their metrics and polling then so many wouldn't fail into F2P.
Your view on some of these things is a little off.
Investors may be aware of games, but they invest in developers, not games. If some no-name developer says they can make a game like Mortal Online, but good, they are not going to get any investment dollars. If a developer has created profitable games in the past and has some people who worked on MMORPGs in the past they are much more likely to get funding if they say they can make a game like Mortal Online, but good.
So, what can we take away from this? Developers and investors are the people who are most likely to know what will work and what won't. That doesn't mean they are perfect, but they certainly know more than anyone on these forums who isn't involved in the industry.
It is significant that the only people who are trying to build the "old school" games are people with little experience in MMORPGs. It is also significant that they are having to use crowd funding to build their tech demos to try and secure further funding for their games. The developers who probably could secure funding aren't looking for it, and the developers who want funding are having to prove that an "old school" game can give a reasonable return on investment. This is no mean feat given the cost of MMORPG development and the fact that every comparison between the "old school" and "new school" games shows the "new school" games retaining more players and making more money. This is still true even if WoW did not exist.
So on the one side we have people who have years of experience financing, building and yes, playing MMORPGs shying away from "old school" games, and on the other side we have people who have only played MMORPGs for years. Of the two, it seems that the people who have been involved in the industry would be the ones more likely to be right.
Old school games were released during the old school days. You forgot to mention that. They also started from scratch.
You simply cannot compare the situations and determine anything other than online games have gotten more popular as more people get on the internet.
A new mmorpg advancing that old school gameplay would be the only way to determine anything. Remember they weren't handicapped by DIKU either, so progression isn't "the game". They could use all the modern tricks and tech as well.
I would bet an new refined old school mmo would end up about the same as a new school mmo. I would bet.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
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 don't know that, and I also don't think I said it. Though judging by some of the things you've said, I think it's a pretty safe assumption.
But what you said is you're fed up with people acting like their opinion is better than anybody else's. Opinions and preferences are NOT always equal. You can indeed criticize or analyse another person's opinion.
Anyone else think my opinion is inferior to Holophonist's?
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.
Uh, the games you're talking about have incredibly miniscule player counts currently. They had small player counts even in their prime. Which is why companies haven't spent much money chasing after the oldschool type of MMORPG.
No "excuses" are being offered here, only an accurate look at what has happened, and what is happening.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I never gave a description of investors. I'm just stating that its obvious that market trended towards the extraordinary success of WoW. Not surprising considering the risk involved in the creation of MMORPG. But until someone actually create a game with modern polish and old school MMORPG features it's all speculation it will or won't work. If these developers were perfect with their metrics and polling then so many wouldn't fail into F2P.
Why did you have to go and ruin a perfectly good post?
F2P is not the same as failing. DDO made more money as a F2P than it ever did as P2P. Team Fortress 2 more than when it required a box price. Battlefield Heroes was a success. Essentially all of the online collecting card games are F2P. League of Legends and World of Tanks both owe their successes in part by the F2P model. In fact the game type relies on it, because there wouldn't be enough people for the matchmaking to work properly without the a huge influx of players upfront. Players need players to play against. These games would suffer from a slow build-up, so they go for F2P instead.
There are so many good F2P games out there, you can't make any assumption about quality just by looking at the payment model.
It is far more complicated than just "herp derp, F2P - FAIL!"
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.
Personally I do not think developers are clueless or lazy. When it comes to greed I mostly blame the suits. We are all armchair generals on this site, that rather goes with it being MMORPG.com. I am all for new types of games, the reinvention of the MMOFPS with PS2 was a joy. But will we see more solid MMOFPS? Early days as yet, the MMO genre can make a niche game like EVE, but finds it hard to expand on that so that successor games come with a bigger budget. To me many old school values are important, but I advocate rebalancing only, just going back to old school would be untenable.
When it comes to working on one game too long I take your point, designers and those involved with the game would certainly want something fresh and invigorating. But the issue for the modern model is that people are being laid off, not going on to the next game and gaming companies are closing down. Is this happening more now, perhaps there is just more companies so there are going to be more that fail? But writers on this site and others have brought up the issue as a matter of concern, so I doubt everything is that wonderful in the gaming industry.
How many times can you misrepresent the facts in one post?
1. I've given a TON of rational arguments for why I'm in favor of old school games. I've explained how watering down works. I've explained how it makes sense that developers would go for the easy buck instead of making an innovative game. Why wouldn't they? They saw WoW's success so they try to emulate it. I've said over and over that I understand this is how the market works... the other side of the market is consumers voicing their opinions about what they want. I'm not sure how it's wrong for me to do so. Yours is the side that is tells us to just "move on" and "give up." How about you mind your own business and let use decide for ourselves how we want to spend our time? And as I've pointed out to you before, it's not a coincidence that so many people "whine" about wanting a sandbox and now a lot of sandbox games are on the horizon. Seems to me you don't have a leg to stand on.
2. You can't nebulously reference a thread where people argued with me for "5 pages" about how the market works. I KNOW how the market works, trust me. You don't have to teach me anything about free markets or economics in general. And tt's not a valid discussion if most of the people just don't respond to my points.
3. I don't think I've said any game is for kiddies, and I don't think I've called them "failures." At least not in a derogatory way. I may have pointed that games have failed, so what? You all LOVE to point out how old school games have "failed." You have a double standard here.
4. I call the developers who are being greedy and lazy greedy and lazy, sure. If you think I'm talking about the little guy who's just doing his job writing code, you're wrong. I'm talking about the people making the decision. If there's a developer that is looking to steal ideas from other games and hoping to ride a wave of easy money, I don't see the problem with pointing it out. It's not like I'm going after some "indie developer." In fact I rarely even mention a specific company.
5. I'm pretty sure what I said was "just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean I'm wrong." And that's a completely true and reasonable thing to say. You have a tendency to simply say "you can't prove that" or "you don't know that" (even though I'm rarely claiming that I have proof for what I'm saying) without taking a stance one way or the other. In other words, ARGUE YOUR POINT. It's not an argument to say "that's your opinion." Yes, a lot of what I said is opinion, just like a lot of what you say is opinion, and a lot of what everybody here says is opinion.
1. Forums are skewed toward the negative not by a little, but by A LOT. You cannot make any conclusions based on forums posts, because...
most people don't read forums
most people don't post on forums
and most of the posts represent an extreme view.
The ones that do post are a very special group among players which is bound to be skewed in a direction that poorly represents the community as a whole. For example, changes in Battefield Heroes' cash shop sparked massive outrage on the forums people proclaiming to quit the game etc., but looking at data months after the changes showed that even those most vocal about their discontent were still playing the game.
2. People felt the need to educate you because of your statements which could be seen as born out of ignorance. They also ignore some of your more weaker claims outright.
3. I haven't said old school games have failed. I am saying they were small. And I am saying there was a reason why they were small. Improvements in gameplay and a more "gamey" approach in general made MMOs much more popular.
4. Using a blanket statement "developer" also includes that one coder. And if you look at the industry, borrowing ideas is completely normal. In fact, new concepts are extremely rare. "Nothing new under the sun" etc.
5. Your exact words:
"[...] just because I can't prove it doesn't mean its not true."
By no means is that statement sensible. Me poking holes in your logic and questioning your judgement is the correct way to combat such arguments. It shows your reasoning can't be trusted. All you have is conjecture and speculation, yet you insist it is true - or at the very least "not true". What should we make of this?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Personally I do not think developers are clueless or lazy. When it comes to greed I mostly blame the suits. We are all armchair generals on this site, that rather goes with it being MMORPG.com. I am all for new types of games, the reinvention of the MMOFPS with PS2 was a joy. But will we see more solid MMOFPS? Early days as yet, the MMO genre can make a niche game like EVE, but finds it hard to expand on that so that successor games come with a bigger budget. To me many old school values are important, but I advocate rebalancing only, just going back to old school would be untenable.
When it comes to working on one game too long I take your point, designers and those involved with the game would certainly want something fresh and invigorating. But the issue for the modern model is that people are being laid off, not going on to the next game and gaming companies are closing down. Is this happening more now, perhaps there is just more companies so there are going to be more that fail? But writers on this site and others have brought up the issue as a matter of concern, so I doubt everything is that wonderful in the gaming industry.
But this may have nothing to do with what types of games the companies are making. Who knows how many Team Bondi incidents there has been in the past. It could be that people just started writing about that stuff. Then again, in a market with toughening competition, it is somewhat to be expected that these things happen.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I want an mmo where people had a role in a group. Like it was in Lineage2. Open world pvp(with a flagging system). Open dungeons. Clan wars. Alliance wars.
When WoW rolled around and investors saw how popular and profitable this became they were asking other MMO's if the game they were going to invest in was similar to WoW. They became reluctant to invest if it wasn't, because they wanted to make a profit off the game and they were not always willing to take a risk.
I'm going to say that thought process has changed, but that's how it was when WoW first came out. As you could see by how many WoW clones were being pushed out by some companies.
@ Quirhid: I didn't say F2P was a failed business model. I said that games failed into F2P. You are right the success of F2P is not a reflection of quality and that goes both ways. The threshold is lowered for entry and the ability to sell in the cash shop makes the all the difference. Its does not mean it is a quality game either.
What I was talking about were games released as P2P and could not maintain subscriptions due to likely lack of of true longevity in the game play. To me that means your game failed and has to be subsidized not by design initial.
How many times can you misrepresent the facts in one post?
1. I've given a TON of rational arguments for why I'm in favor of old school games. I've explained how watering down works. I've explained how it makes sense that developers would go for the easy buck instead of making an innovative game. Why wouldn't they? They saw WoW's success so they try to emulate it. I've said over and over that I understand this is how the market works... the other side of the market is consumers voicing their opinions about what they want. I'm not sure how it's wrong for me to do so. Yours is the side that is tells us to just "move on" and "give up." How about you mind your own business and let use decide for ourselves how we want to spend our time? And as I've pointed out to you before, it's not a coincidence that so many people "whine" about wanting a sandbox and now a lot of sandbox games are on the horizon. Seems to me you don't have a leg to stand on.
2. You can't nebulously reference a thread where people argued with me for "5 pages" about how the market works. I KNOW how the market works, trust me. You don't have to teach me anything about free markets or economics in general. And tt's not a valid discussion if most of the people just don't respond to my points.
3. I don't think I've said any game is for kiddies, and I don't think I've called them "failures." At least not in a derogatory way. I may have pointed that games have failed, so what? You all LOVE to point out how old school games have "failed." You have a double standard here.
4. I call the developers who are being greedy and lazy greedy and lazy, sure. If you think I'm talking about the little guy who's just doing his job writing code, you're wrong. I'm talking about the people making the decision. If there's a developer that is looking to steal ideas from other games and hoping to ride a wave of easy money, I don't see the problem with pointing it out. It's not like I'm going after some "indie developer." In fact I rarely even mention a specific company.
5. I'm pretty sure what I said was "just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean I'm wrong." And that's a completely true and reasonable thing to say. You have a tendency to simply say "you can't prove that" or "you don't know that" (even though I'm rarely claiming that I have proof for what I'm saying) without taking a stance one way or the other. In other words, ARGUE YOUR POINT. It's not an argument to say "that's your opinion." Yes, a lot of what I said is opinion, just like a lot of what you say is opinion, and a lot of what everybody here says is opinion.
1. Forums are skewed toward the negative not by a little, but by A LOT. You cannot make any conclusions based on forums posts, because...
most people don't read forums
most people don't post on forums
and most of the posts represent an extreme view.
The ones that do post are a very special group among players which is bound to be skewed in a direction that poorly represents the community as a whole. For example, changes in Battefield Heroes' cash shop sparked massive outrage on the forums people proclaiming to quit the game etc., but looking at data months after the changes showed that even those most vocal about their discontent were still playing the game.
What does this have to do with what I said? Like at all? You said I haven't given any rational arguments to back up what I've said... when in fact I have.
2. People felt the need to educate you because of your statements which could be seen as born out of ignorance. They also ignore some of your more weaker claims outright.
No, that's not how arguing works. You can't ignore points because you think they're wrong and then claim some kind of authority on the subject. That's arrogant and ridiculous.
3. I haven't said old school games have failed. I am saying they were small. And I am saying there was a reason why they were small. Improvements in gameplay and a more "gamey" approach in general made MMOs much more popular.
Ok, you never said any game has failed. Awesome. That's almost definitely BS, but I'm really not interested in searching through your posts to find a quote. At any rate, what does it matter? How is it rude or inappropriate to say a game failed? Again, you're just picking and choosing what to respond to.
4. Using a blanket statement "developer" also includes that one coder. And if you look at the industry, borrowing ideas is completely normal. In fact, new concepts are extremely rare. "Nothing new under the sun" etc.
Haha... yes, that's my point. If you look at the industry new concepts are indeed rare. I agree. And by the way, you can't tell me what I mean when I say developer. It's pretty obvious I'm talking about the people who make the decisions because I often mention that the games are WELL MADE, they're just poorly designed. i fully acknowledge that a lot of these themeparks are aesthetically pleasing and streamlined. That indicates that it isn't the fault of the people creating the game, but how it's being designed.
5. Your exact words:
"[...] just because I can't prove it doesn't mean its not true."
By no means is that statement sensible. Me poking holes in your logic and questioning your judgement is the correct way to combat such arguments. It shows your reasoning can't be trusted. All you have is conjecture and speculation, yet you insist it is true - or at the very least "not true". What should we make of this?
Yeah, that's what I said. That's different from what you claimed I said. And it absolutely is a reasonable thing to say. How is it not? It seems to me to be 100% intuitive. There are many things that you can't prove that aren't necessarily wrong... in fact the vast majority of statements made fit this exact description. What are you talking about?
You have never poked holes in anything. You hone in on certain phrases while ignoring other, more important points. It's what you've always done and it's what you're doing now. Over the past week there have been around 3 instances of you attacking me, me responding and then you just tucking tail. What should we make of this?
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal @ Quirhid: I didn't say F2P was a failed business model. I said that games failed into F2P. You are right the success of F2P is not a reflection of quality and that goes both ways. The threshold is lowered for entry and the ability to sell in the cash shop makes the all the difference. Its does not mean it is a quality game either.
What I was talking about were games released as P2P and could not maintain subscriptions due to likely lack of of true longevity in the game play. To me that means your game failed and has to be subsidized not by design initial.
Even so. Those games did not fail due to style (being themepark). Where those games failed, is to meet expectations. They failed as games.
Take SWTOR and MO. Neither failed because they were themepark or sandbox. They failed because they weren't very good. SWTOR failing is not a sign that people don't want that type of game anymore, no more than MO failing means people don't want sandboxes.
A lot more people were interested in SWTOR than MO though.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Vermillion_RaventhalI never gave a description of investors. I'm just stating that its obvious that market trended towards the extraordinary success of WoW. Not surprising considering the risk involved in the creation of MMORPG. But until someone actually create a game with modern polish and old school MMORPG features it's all speculation it will or won't work. If these developers were perfect with their metrics and polling then so many wouldn't fail into F2P.
Your view on some of these things is a little off. Investors may be aware of games, but they invest in developers, not games. If some no-name developer says they can make a game like Mortal Online, but good, they are not going to get any investment dollars. If a developer has created profitable games in the past and has some people who worked on MMORPGs in the past they are much more likely to get funding if they say they can make a game like Mortal Online, but good. So, what can we take away from this? Developers and investors are the people who are most likely to know what will work and what won't. That doesn't mean they are perfect, but they certainly know more than anyone on these forums who isn't involved in the industry. It is significant that the only people who are trying to build the "old school" games are people with little experience in MMORPGs. It is also significant that they are having to use crowd funding to build their tech demos to try and secure further funding for their games. The developers who probably could secure funding aren't looking for it, and the developers who want funding are having to prove that an "old school" game can give a reasonable return on investment. This is no mean feat given the cost of MMORPG development and the fact that every comparison between the "old school" and "new school" games shows the "new school" games retaining more players and making more money. This is still true even if WoW did not exist. So on the one side we have people who have years of experience financing, building and yes, playing MMORPGs shying away from "old school" games, and on the other side we have people who have only played MMORPGs for years. Of the two, it seems that the people who have been involved in the industry would be the ones more likely to be right.
Old school games were released during the old school days. You forgot to mention that. They also started from scratch.
You simply cannot compare the situations and determine anything other than online games have gotten more popular as more people get on the internet.
A new mmorpg advancing that old school gameplay would be the only way to determine anything. Remember they weren't handicapped by DIKU either, so progression isn't "the game". They could use all the modern tricks and tech as well.
I would bet an new refined old school mmo would end up about the same as a new school mmo. I would bet.
We still have years of experience working in the industry and playing the games versus years of experience playing the games. The people working in the industry have all the experience of all the people playing the games, in addition to the experience of seeing how all the other players use and respond to the features they implement. The people with more experience, more knowledge and better access to information are more likely to be right.
**
Including Vermillion_Raventhal's post here. My response is the same for both posts, and I didn't want to double post. Sorry for any confusion.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal I think developers are starting to realize that cloning WoW doesn't work in bringing in WoW numbers. We've had the MMORPG market grow a lot and many gamers have never experienced and "old school style games." How do you truly get stats on them? Maybe they would all reject it. But we will never know if its never done. But WoW and back games have some how managed to be subscription based for years and in the case of Eve actually grow. You then have all these games that cloned the WoW experience come out and sell and promptly bleed subscriptions until they're forced to subside the games. I wonder how a game like EvE's paying customers add up to F2P MMORPG's paying customers in numbers. Not earned but just those who find the game worth paying for.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I agree with the reasoning but I think it should be pointed out that there's a difference between a general concept for how a game should be, and actually making and designing that game. I have no doubt that developers know more about the details involved in making a game, but I don't think they're infallible when it comes to figuring out what TYPE of game people want. Also, I think it's important to point out that the only reason we think this kind of distortion in the market is possible is because WoW unnaturally skewed the market towards those types of games and it's now correcting itself. Correcting itself doesn't mean ALL sandboxes and no themeparks, but it does mean some sandboxes because there are a lot of us who want them.
1. Forums are skewed toward the negative not by a little, but by A LOT. You cannot make any conclusions based on forums posts, because...
most people don't read forums
most people don't post on forums
and most of the posts represent an extreme view.
The ones that do post are a very special group among players which is bound to be skewed in a direction that poorly represents the community as a whole. For example, changes in Battefield Heroes' cash shop sparked massive outrage on the forums people proclaiming to quit the game etc., but looking at data months after the changes showed that even those most vocal about their discontent were still playing the game.
What does this have to do with what I said? Like at all? You said I haven't given any rational arguments to back up what I've said... when in fact I have.
You pointed out a lot of people whine, I provided an explanation.
2. People felt the need to educate you because of your statements which could be seen as born out of ignorance. They also ignore some of your more weaker claims outright.
No, that's not how arguing works. You can't ignore points because you think they're wrong and then claim some kind of authority on the subject. That's arrogant and ridiculous.
I ignore some of your claims and assumptions because picking them all apart would be exhausting.
3. I haven't said old school games have failed. I am saying they were small. And I am saying there was a reason why they were small. Improvements in gameplay and a more "gamey" approach in general made MMOs much more popular.
Ok, you never said any game has failed. Awesome. That's almost definitely BS, but I'm really not interested in searching through your posts to find a quote. At any rate, what does it matter? How is it rude or inappropriate to say a game failed? Again, you're just picking and choosing what to respond to.
It matters. You are imposing your standards and claim to know better. It is rude.
4. Using a blanket statement "developer" also includes that one coder. And if you look at the industry, borrowing ideas is completely normal. In fact, new concepts are extremely rare. "Nothing new under the sun" etc.
Haha... yes, that's my point. If you look at the industry new concepts are indeed rare. I agree. And by the way, you can't tell me what I mean when I say developer. It's pretty obvious I'm talking about the people who make the decisions because I often mention that the games are WELL MADE, they're just poorly designed. i fully acknowledge that a lot of these themeparks are aesthetically pleasing and streamlined. That indicates that it isn't the fault of the people creating the game, but how it's being designed.
No I don't know what you mean by the word developer. Language relying on a consensus among its speakers I can only assume you mean the same thing as I do. How do you know their design is not good? For one, often it is not even supposed to cater to you.
5. Your exact words:
"[...] just because I can't prove it doesn't mean its not true."
By no means is that statement sensible. Me poking holes in your logic and questioning your judgement is the correct way to combat such arguments. It shows your reasoning can't be trusted. All you have is conjecture and speculation, yet you insist it is true - or at the very least "not true". What should we make of this?
Yeah, that's what I said. That's different from what you claimed I said. And it absolutely is a reasonable thing to say. How is it not? It seems to me to be 100% intuitive. There are many things that you can't prove that aren't necessarily wrong... in fact the vast majority of statements made fit this exact description. What are you talking about?
You have never poked holes in anything. You hone in on certain phrases while ignoring other, more important points. It's what you've always done and it's what you're doing now. Over the past week there have been around 3 instances of you attacking me, me responding and then you just tucking tail. What should we make of this?
I am not attacking you I am attacking your arguments. You're the one making personal comments. I just can't be arsed to dust off old threads that have reached the point of ad nauseam. Declaring yourself victor or "right" on the basis of that doesn't speak highly of you.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Holophonist Over the past week there have been around 3 instances of you attacking me, me responding and then you just tucking tail. What should we make of this?
That your perception of how each of these conversation has gone is rather skewed.
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 Holophonist Over the past week there have been around 3 instances of you attacking me, me responding and then you just tucking tail. What should we make of this?
That your perception of how each of these conversation has gone is rather skewed.
So you've seen them, then? Because there are at least 2 where he came into a conversation I was having with somebody else, then I responded to his interjection, and then he just never responded again. But please continue to pick out little things here and there because you guys can't ever seem to respond to the content of my posts. Instead you have to try to get petty jabs in.
1. Forums are skewed toward the negative not by a little, but by A LOT. You cannot make any conclusions based on forums posts, because...
most people don't read forums
most people don't post on forums
and most of the posts represent an extreme view.
The ones that do post are a very special group among players which is bound to be skewed in a direction that poorly represents the community as a whole. For example, changes in Battefield Heroes' cash shop sparked massive outrage on the forums people proclaiming to quit the game etc., but looking at data months after the changes showed that even those most vocal about their discontent were still playing the game.
What does this have to do with what I said? Like at all? You said I haven't given any rational arguments to back up what I've said... when in fact I have.
You pointed out a lot of people whine, I provided an explanation.
I said the word "whine", yes. Do you remember what the context was? I said it's not a coincidence that people whine about sandboxes and then sandboxes get made. You telling me about how vocal minorities work doesn't have anything to do with what I said. Instead, it proves that you didn't grasp the meaning. The point of me saying that was to say that there's probably a connection between people saying they want sandboxes and sandboxes being made... in other words it's a defense for you guys saying we shouldn't waste our time asking for sandboxes.
Also you totally ignored the rest of what I was saying and chose to hone in on one part, because that's what you do. It just turns out that you didn't even understand that one small part.
2. People felt the need to educate you because of your statements which could be seen as born out of ignorance. They also ignore some of your more weaker claims outright.
No, that's not how arguing works. You can't ignore points because you think they're wrong and then claim some kind of authority on the subject. That's arrogant and ridiculous.
I ignore some of your claims and assumptions because picking them all apart would be exhausting.
That's not how grown-ups debate. You can't ignore points AND THEN claim some kind of authority. You have no credibility when it comes to referencing other discussions because in all of them you are constantly ignoring major points and just leading us into super concentrated bunny-trails where we debate the meanings of words and things like that. This keeps happening because you can't stay on topic. You pick out little phrases here and there because you have nothing to say to the major point. And so we end up arguing about tiny crap that doesn't matter and it becomes a battle over words and meanings of words. It's pointless.
3. I haven't said old school games have failed. I am saying they were small. And I am saying there was a reason why they were small. Improvements in gameplay and a more "gamey" approach in general made MMOs much more popular.
Ok, you never said any game has failed. Awesome. That's almost definitely BS, but I'm really not interested in searching through your posts to find a quote. At any rate, what does it matter? How is it rude or inappropriate to say a game failed? Again, you're just picking and choosing what to respond to.
It matters. You are imposing your standards and claim to know better. It is rude.
What standards are you even talking about? This is such a huge waste of time. Are you saying I can't say game has failed? By the way, I don't even remember when I have said a game has failed. But it's not rude or derogatory to say a game has failed.
Also, you claim I said things like certain games are "for kiddies." I haven't. You're misrepresenting what I've said and imposing OTHER PEOPLE'S comments onto me as if I said them and then say I come off as rude to these developers. Wrong.
4. Using a blanket statement "developer" also includes that one coder. And if you look at the industry, borrowing ideas is completely normal. In fact, new concepts are extremely rare. "Nothing new under the sun" etc.
Haha... yes, that's my point. If you look at the industry new concepts are indeed rare. I agree. And by the way, you can't tell me what I mean when I say developer. It's pretty obvious I'm talking about the people who make the decisions because I often mention that the games are WELL MADE, they're just poorly designed. i fully acknowledge that a lot of these themeparks are aesthetically pleasing and streamlined. That indicates that it isn't the fault of the people creating the game, but how it's being designed.
No I don't know what you mean by the word developer. Language relying on a consensus among its speakers I can only assume you mean the same thing as I do. How do you know their design is not good? For one, often it is not even supposed to cater to you.
Should I point out that I don't mean the janitor of a certain company is making poor decisions, too? When I'm criticizing the decision making of a company, obviously I'm criticizing the people who are making the decisions. Did I really have to explain that to you? Or are you just trying to pick more fights? You're coming off as really petty.
5. Your exact words:
"[...] just because I can't prove it doesn't mean its not true."
By no means is that statement sensible. Me poking holes in your logic and questioning your judgement is the correct way to combat such arguments. It shows your reasoning can't be trusted. All you have is conjecture and speculation, yet you insist it is true - or at the very least "not true". What should we make of this?
Yeah, that's what I said. That's different from what you claimed I said. And it absolutely is a reasonable thing to say. How is it not? It seems to me to be 100% intuitive. There are many things that you can't prove that aren't necessarily wrong... in fact the vast majority of statements made fit this exact description. What are you talking about?
You have never poked holes in anything. You hone in on certain phrases while ignoring other, more important points. It's what you've always done and it's what you're doing now. Over the past week there have been around 3 instances of you attacking me, me responding and then you just tucking tail. What should we make of this?
I am not attacking you I am attacking your arguments. You're the one making personal comments. I just can't be arsed to dust off old threads that have reached the point of ad nauseam. Declaring yourself victor or "right" on the basis of that doesn't speak highly of you.
ARE YOU EVER GOING TO STOP IGNORING POINTS? This is a perfect example of a moment in a discussion where YOU will claim that we're just going around circles and I'm being stubborn, but in reality you're not even coming close to responding to the original point. If we're going around in circles, it's because I'm chasing you around as you run away from the main and original point.
Yeah, that's what I said. That's different from what you claimed I said. And it absolutely is a reasonable thing to say. How is it not? It seems to me to be 100% intuitive. There are many things that you can't prove that aren't necessarily wrong... in fact the vast majority of statements made fit this exact description. What are you talking about?
Arguing with you is always so pointless because you are simply incapable of having a cohesive, sequential discussion. As soon as I respond to something inaccurate you've said, you change the subject to something else.
So in other words, there will be no more AAA mmo titles because even those with all the data and money and popular IP's, with televised ads, still cant turn a profit.
Where do you get the idea that they aren't turning a profit? Most MMOs make back their money and then some. That's profit. There's just this expectation that a game has to go on forever and ever and that's not a realistic expectation. Eventually, a game stops making money and stops. That's true of every game in every genre.
Thanks for the anecdote? I already specifically said that I'm sure some people played those games and quit, just like some people started out playing WoW and would play a sandbox if they had the chance. You're the one making the assumption that the people who used to play sandboxes aren't around anymore. Dance around it all you want.
And you're the one making the unfounded assumption that they are. It's not just an anecdote, you can find a large number of people on these very forums who will tell you that they played games from the UO days and are no longer interested in old-school games. Of course, it's harder to find people on the forums who stopped playing MMOs entirely, but as people age, they play fewer games, have less time, etc. That's why, as the median age of MMO players has gone up, they've become more casual to cater to those players.
THESE AREN'T FACTS. You said the fact is that they can't compete with mainstream MMOs. I'll ask AGAIN, what makes you think that? All you're doing is saying "They won't be made because they can't compete with mainstream MMOs and I know this because they aren't being made." It's a circular argument.
They aren't being made because the market research shows that people who are currently playing games don't have any interest in playing them. Virtually every time a new MMO is made with some of these old-school elements, it fails. You can argue that it isn't the perfect game with all the elements you want to see, but the fact remains, the industry only sees those as failures. Players don't approach developers en masse demanding old-school elements. If they did, developers would make them and people would play them. That's just not what we see in the marketplace, no matter how much you wish that we did.
Indeed. GTA V has content for less than 50 hours. Is it a bad game?
Clearly not since it's making sales records and has already passed a billion dollars in sales. It was making more than $800 a minute it's first day of release. That's not a bad game by any means.
LOL are you serious? Lots of money = good product? Is this a joke?
GTA V may be a good game (I haven't played it, nor do I intend to), but the fact that it has sold so many copies does NOT make it a good game, it makes it a profitable game.
Good and bad are entirely subjective. What you think is good is only good for you, what you think is bad is only bad for you. You don't mean a damn thing to the industry, it's only how people think collectively that matters. If a million people think it's a good product and buy it, it's a successful product, no matter what you, personally, think of it.
It's the numbers that matter. You ought to figure that out.
What game did we sandbox players point to as being "the one"? The only one that I personally was really excited for was DFUW. And I do like that game, but it's not a sandbox unfortunately. So tell me, what sandbox game came out that we all claimed was going to be the big one?
Perpetuum
Dafrkfall Online
ArcheAge
Age of Wushu
Star Citizen
Black Desert
Everquest Next
You could travel back further and watch the pattern over and over again.
I was going to pull out a similar list but decided it was pointless, he's just going to say "I didn't want those games, therefore the list is invalid!"
Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by Holophonist
What game did we sandbox players point to as being "the one"? The only one that I personally was really excited for was DFUW. And I do like that game, but it's not a sandbox unfortunately. So tell me, what sandbox game came out that we all claimed was going to be the big one?
Perpetuum
Dafrkfall Online
ArcheAge
Age of Wushu
Star Citizen
Black Desert
Everquest Next
You could travel back further and watch the pattern over and over again.
I was going to pull out a similar list but decided it was pointless, he's just going to say "I didn't want those games, therefore the list is invalid!"
Well I'm sorry if you don't understand, but it's a bs list. As I pointed out over half of that list even out in the us yet. Why are they on there? Also it definitely matters if I didn't say those games were going to be THE ONE because you're talking about individual people's credibility. You can't say I'm not credible because I've been wrong about games in the past if I haven't been.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Cephus404 Originally posted by QuirhidIndeed. GTA V has content for less than 50 hours. Is it a bad game?
Clearly not since it's making sales records and has already passed a billion dollars in sales. It was making more than $800 a minute it's first day of release. That's not a bad game by any means.
LOL are you serious? Lots of money = good product? Is this a joke?
GTA V may be a good game (I haven't played it, nor do I intend to), but the fact that it has sold so many copies does NOT make it a good game, it makes it a profitable game.
Good and bad are entirely subjective. What you think is good is only good for you, what you think is bad is only bad for you. You don't mean a damn thing to the industry, it's only how people think collectively that matters. If a million people think it's a good product and buy it, it's a successful product, no matter what you, personally, think of it.
It's the numbers that matter. You ought to figure that out.
If they're entirely subjective then how can you say that it's a good game just because it sold a lot of copies. You're declaring that profitability = quality (good or bad). Why do YOU get to decide what makes a game good?
Comments
I think developers are starting to realize that cloning WoW doesn't work in bringing in WoW numbers. We've had the MMORPG market grow a lot and many gamers have never experienced and "old school style games." How do you truly get stats on them? Maybe they would all reject it. But we will never know if its never done.
But WoW and back games have some how managed to be subscription based for years and in the case of Eve actually grow. You then have all these games that cloned the WoW experience come out and sell and promptly bleed subscriptions until they're forced to subside the games. I wonder how a game like EvE's paying customers add up to F2P MMORPG's paying customers in numbers. Not earned but just those who find the game worth paying for.
Old school games were released during the old school days. You forgot to mention that. They also started from scratch.
You simply cannot compare the situations and determine anything other than online games have gotten more popular as more people get on the internet.
A new mmorpg advancing that old school gameplay would be the only way to determine anything. Remember they weren't handicapped by DIKU either, so progression isn't "the game". They could use all the modern tricks and tech as well.
I would bet an new refined old school mmo would end up about the same as a new school mmo. I would bet.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
*raises hand*
Uh, the games you're talking about have incredibly miniscule player counts currently. They had small player counts even in their prime. Which is why companies haven't spent much money chasing after the oldschool type of MMORPG.
No "excuses" are being offered here, only an accurate look at what has happened, and what is happening.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Why did you have to go and ruin a perfectly good post?
F2P is not the same as failing. DDO made more money as a F2P than it ever did as P2P. Team Fortress 2 more than when it required a box price. Battlefield Heroes was a success. Essentially all of the online collecting card games are F2P. League of Legends and World of Tanks both owe their successes in part by the F2P model. In fact the game type relies on it, because there wouldn't be enough people for the matchmaking to work properly without the a huge influx of players upfront. Players need players to play against. These games would suffer from a slow build-up, so they go for F2P instead.
There are so many good F2P games out there, you can't make any assumption about quality just by looking at the payment model.
It is far more complicated than just "herp derp, F2P - FAIL!"
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Personally I do not think developers are clueless or lazy. When it comes to greed I mostly blame the suits. We are all armchair generals on this site, that rather goes with it being MMORPG.com. I am all for new types of games, the reinvention of the MMOFPS with PS2 was a joy. But will we see more solid MMOFPS? Early days as yet, the MMO genre can make a niche game like EVE, but finds it hard to expand on that so that successor games come with a bigger budget. To me many old school values are important, but I advocate rebalancing only, just going back to old school would be untenable.
When it comes to working on one game too long I take your point, designers and those involved with the game would certainly want something fresh and invigorating. But the issue for the modern model is that people are being laid off, not going on to the next game and gaming companies are closing down. Is this happening more now, perhaps there is just more companies so there are going to be more that fail? But writers on this site and others have brought up the issue as a matter of concern, so I doubt everything is that wonderful in the gaming industry.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
But this may have nothing to do with what types of games the companies are making. Who knows how many Team Bondi incidents there has been in the past. It could be that people just started writing about that stuff. Then again, in a market with toughening competition, it is somewhat to be expected that these things happen.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I want an mmo where people had a role in a group. Like it was in Lineage2. Open world pvp(with a flagging system). Open dungeons. Clan wars. Alliance wars.
When WoW rolled around and investors saw how popular and profitable this became they were asking other MMO's if the game they were going to invest in was similar to WoW. They became reluctant to invest if it wasn't, because they wanted to make a profit off the game and they were not always willing to take a risk.
I'm going to say that thought process has changed, but that's how it was when WoW first came out. As you could see by how many WoW clones were being pushed out by some companies.
What I was talking about were games released as P2P and could not maintain subscriptions due to likely lack of of true longevity in the game play. To me that means your game failed and has to be subsidized not by design initial.
Yeah, that's what I said. That's different from what you claimed I said. And it absolutely is a reasonable thing to say. How is it not? It seems to me to be 100% intuitive. There are many things that you can't prove that aren't necessarily wrong... in fact the vast majority of statements made fit this exact description. What are you talking about?
You have never poked holes in anything. You hone in on certain phrases while ignoring other, more important points. It's what you've always done and it's what you're doing now. Over the past week there have been around 3 instances of you attacking me, me responding and then you just tucking tail. What should we make of this?
Even so. Those games did not fail due to style (being themepark). Where those games failed, is to meet expectations. They failed as games.
Take SWTOR and MO. Neither failed because they were themepark or sandbox. They failed because they weren't very good. SWTOR failing is not a sign that people don't want that type of game anymore, no more than MO failing means people don't want sandboxes.
A lot more people were interested in SWTOR than MO though.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
We still have years of experience working in the industry and playing the games versus years of experience playing the games. The people working in the industry have all the experience of all the people playing the games, in addition to the experience of seeing how all the other players use and respond to the features they implement. The people with more experience, more knowledge and better access to information are more likely to be right.
**
Including Vermillion_Raventhal's post here. My response is the same for both posts, and I didn't want to double post. Sorry for any confusion.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I agree with the reasoning but I think it should be pointed out that there's a difference between a general concept for how a game should be, and actually making and designing that game. I have no doubt that developers know more about the details involved in making a game, but I don't think they're infallible when it comes to figuring out what TYPE of game people want. Also, I think it's important to point out that the only reason we think this kind of distortion in the market is possible is because WoW unnaturally skewed the market towards those types of games and it's now correcting itself. Correcting itself doesn't mean ALL sandboxes and no themeparks, but it does mean some sandboxes because there are a lot of us who want them.
I am not attacking you I am attacking your arguments. You're the one making personal comments. I just can't be arsed to dust off old threads that have reached the point of ad nauseam. Declaring yourself victor or "right" on the basis of that doesn't speak highly of you.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
That your perception of how each of these conversation has gone is rather skewed.
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
So you've seen them, then? Because there are at least 2 where he came into a conversation I was having with somebody else, then I responded to his interjection, and then he just never responded again. But please continue to pick out little things here and there because you guys can't ever seem to respond to the content of my posts. Instead you have to try to get petty jabs in.
ARE YOU EVER GOING TO STOP IGNORING POINTS? This is a perfect example of a moment in a discussion where YOU will claim that we're just going around circles and I'm being stubborn, but in reality you're not even coming close to responding to the original point. If we're going around in circles, it's because I'm chasing you around as you run away from the main and original point.
Yeah, that's what I said. That's different from what you claimed I said. And it absolutely is a reasonable thing to say. How is it not? It seems to me to be 100% intuitive. There are many things that you can't prove that aren't necessarily wrong... in fact the vast majority of statements made fit this exact description. What are you talking about?
Arguing with you is always so pointless because you are simply incapable of having a cohesive, sequential discussion. As soon as I respond to something inaccurate you've said, you change the subject to something else.
Where do you get the idea that they aren't turning a profit? Most MMOs make back their money and then some. That's profit. There's just this expectation that a game has to go on forever and ever and that's not a realistic expectation. Eventually, a game stops making money and stops. That's true of every game in every genre.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
And you're the one making the unfounded assumption that they are. It's not just an anecdote, you can find a large number of people on these very forums who will tell you that they played games from the UO days and are no longer interested in old-school games. Of course, it's harder to find people on the forums who stopped playing MMOs entirely, but as people age, they play fewer games, have less time, etc. That's why, as the median age of MMO players has gone up, they've become more casual to cater to those players.
They aren't being made because the market research shows that people who are currently playing games don't have any interest in playing them. Virtually every time a new MMO is made with some of these old-school elements, it fails. You can argue that it isn't the perfect game with all the elements you want to see, but the fact remains, the industry only sees those as failures. Players don't approach developers en masse demanding old-school elements. If they did, developers would make them and people would play them. That's just not what we see in the marketplace, no matter how much you wish that we did.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Good and bad are entirely subjective. What you think is good is only good for you, what you think is bad is only bad for you. You don't mean a damn thing to the industry, it's only how people think collectively that matters. If a million people think it's a good product and buy it, it's a successful product, no matter what you, personally, think of it.
It's the numbers that matter. You ought to figure that out.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I was going to pull out a similar list but decided it was pointless, he's just going to say "I didn't want those games, therefore the list is invalid!"
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Perpetuum
Dafrkfall Online
ArcheAge
Age of Wushu
Star Citizen
Black Desert
Everquest Next
You could travel back further and watch the pattern over and over again.
I was going to pull out a similar list but decided it was pointless, he's just going to say "I didn't want those games, therefore the list is invalid!"
Well I'm sorry if you don't understand, but it's a bs list. As I pointed out over half of that list even out in the us yet. Why are they on there? Also it definitely matters if I didn't say those games were going to be THE ONE because you're talking about individual people's credibility. You can't say I'm not credible because I've been wrong about games in the past if I haven't been.Clearly not since it's making sales records and has already passed a billion dollars in sales. It was making more than $800 a minute it's first day of release. That's not a bad game by any means.
LOL are you serious? Lots of money = good product? Is this a joke?
GTA V may be a good game (I haven't played it, nor do I intend to), but the fact that it has sold so many copies does NOT make it a good game, it makes it a profitable game.
Good and bad are entirely subjective. What you think is good is only good for you, what you think is bad is only bad for you. You don't mean a damn thing to the industry, it's only how people think collectively that matters. If a million people think it's a good product and buy it, it's a successful product, no matter what you, personally, think of it.
It's the numbers that matter. You ought to figure that out.
If they're entirely subjective then how can you say that it's a good game just because it sold a lot of copies. You're declaring that profitability = quality (good or bad). Why do YOU get to decide what makes a game good?