Originally posted by HolophonistThanks 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.
It's not an assumption to say that people played this kind of game before so it stands to reason that without new data you can expect people to play them again. Yes some of those people who used to play may not play now (which I've acknowledged from the start), but there are also people who weren't playing before who would play now (which you keep conveniently ignoring). You're making the assumption.
and your market argument is flawed because you don't account for WoW's success skewing the market towards themeparks.
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.
I can't argue with any of that.
We only get half of the story on this end and 90% of it is spin.
World sim with the game built around it is not what people want. I should except that.
Thanks for responding in a kind manner. I appreciate your patience with us.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
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.
I can't argue with any of that.
We only get half of the story on this end and 90% of it is spin.
World sim with the game built around it is not what people want. I should except that.
Thanks for responding in a kind manner. I appreciate your patience with us.
Instead, it might be a good idea to go research some other games that show true promise because they aren't funded by the big investors and are doing things never before seen. There is NO reason that we can't be given more in these games. None, other than laziness and greed.
Originally posted by Vunak23 Originally posted by Cephus404I 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.
You couldn't be more wrong. I get tired of seeing the misconception that the old school players are no longer there or a viable target audience; its a seriously weak argument. The old school players didn't just up and disappear and the collective of the old school games
UO peaked out at 250k
EVE currently 500k,
EQ 450k+
Asherons call 120k
DAoC 250k Final Fantasy XI 500k+ Lineage 1.. 1.4million worldwide Lineage 2... 1.3million worldwide SWG 1 million boxes sold, no idea on sub numbers
Thats 4.7million people without taking into account SWG because I don't know where it was in subscriber numbers, or some of the other games unlisted. Don't say anything about Lineage 1 or 2 worldwide either because if you neglect that then you certainly have to neglect the 6 million that WoW has in China. Its not like these people died or just disappeared so is their a market for the more hardcore? Even if only a third of that number played the game it would still be more popular than the second most popular themepark game, so I would say yes. Not to mention the new crowd isn't all going to be in the new kids crowd; there are going to be people that play the games like WoW and want more and realize they really do want something akin to the old school. It is also tiring seeing people gauge a Companies success off of a games sub number. It doesn't work that way. If a game is pulling profit after 3+ years it is a success; it doesn't matter if they have 120 subs or 120k subs, from a business standpoint it was a success.
Excellent points cookie monster
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
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.
I can't argue with any of that.
We only get half of the story on this end and 90% of it is spin.
World sim with the game built around it is not what people want. I should except that.
Thanks for responding in a kind manner. I appreciate your patience with us.
Instead, it might be a good idea to go research some other games that show true promise because they aren't funded by the big investors and are doing things never before seen. There is NO reason that we can't be given more in these games. None, other than laziness and greed.
Oh I know. there is no reason a big developer cant make a "world sim with the game built around it", other than their experience and metrics.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
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.
You asked a question.
"What game did we sandbox players point to as being "the one"?"
"So tell me, what sandbox game came out that we all claimed was going to be the big one?"
I answered that. You even went as far as to give the exact scenario of excited prior and then disappointed with what was delivered on release
"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."
however when given the direct answer to your question, based exactly on the very scenario you presented, you reject the list because... they fit that scenario.
You then go on to defend against some aspersion of your credibility.
When someone gives you an answer you don't like, you either talk in circles or claim they are attacking you. When they give up trying, you decry them for "tucking tail and running away."
The worst part of it is that you are obviously rather intelligent, and the opportunity for some incredible discussions is actually possible if you would actually try to have a discussion rather than look for ways to deflect anything that doesn't agree with your own preconceptions.
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
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.
You asked a question.
"What game did we sandbox players point to as being "the one"?"
"So tell me, what sandbox game came out that we all claimed was going to be the big one?"
I answered that. You even went as far as to give the exact scenario of excited prior and then disappointed with what was delivered on release
"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."
however when given the direct answer to your question, based exactly on the very scenario you presented, you reject the list because... they fit that scenario.
You then go on to defend against some aspersion of your credibility.
When someone gives you an answer you don't like, you either talk in circles or claim they are attacking you. When they give up trying, you decry them for "tucking tail and running away."
The worst part of it is that you are obviously rather intelligent, and the opportunity for some incredible discussions is actually possible if you would actually try to have a discussion rather than look for ways to deflect anything that doesn't agree with your own preconceptions.
That list is pretty ridiculous.
I think you made the perpetuum devs year including them.
Darkfall is the only one there that could be considered over hyped. I was hooked on that game until we got tossed, so it was fine for me.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
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.
You asked a question.
"What game did we sandbox players point to as being "the one"?"
"So tell me, what sandbox game came out that we all claimed was going to be the big one?"
I answered that. You even went as far as to give the exact scenario of excited prior and then disappointed with what was delivered on release
"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."
however when given the direct answer to your question, based exactly on the very scenario you presented, you reject the list because... they fit that scenario.
You then go on to defend against some aspersion of your credibility.
When someone gives you an answer you don't like, you either talk in circles or claim they are attacking you. When they give up trying, you decry them for "tucking tail and running away."
The worst part of it is that you are obviously rather intelligent, and the opportunity for some incredible discussions is actually possible if you would actually try to have a discussion rather than look for ways to deflect anything that doesn't agree with your own preconceptions.
I'm not sure what circles you're talking about. Over half of that list isn't out. The other half I don't agree that we as a sandbox community over hyped. Perpetuum, really? As others have pointed out, the only one even close was Darkfall. I would say that darkfall ended up not being a true sandbox, but if you want to put that on us as a game that we were excited for and turned out to be wrong, I'm not gonna argue with that. But it definitely matters if the game comes out and it's not what we were expecting. That's not sandbox games failing or us having some insatiable desire to go back to the way things were, only to find out that it's unattainable.
I feel like you guys make points and then forget the context in which they're being made. The claim is that there's some cycle that keeps occurring where we get super excited about some game, and then it fails or then we get bored with it. This is just not true. Darkfall is a good example of us (me at least) getting excited about a game, and then getting bored with it because it's NOT a sandbox.
Have you ever thought that maybe you guys are wrong? You guys love to say we're just being stubborn, but every time I post I'm backing up my thought process with reason. For instance: a lot of those games aren't out. Also: I didn't even KNOW about perpetuum until it was already out. Age of Wushu I didn't even realize it was a sort of sandbox until it was out. Everything I've heard about Age of Wushu has come from people telling me about it after it was already out. I'm not sure how any of this fits into us getting hyped about a game until it turns out the game sucks or fails or whatever.
Originally posted by Quirhid Mortal Online, Xsyon, Heaven & Hearth, Fallen Earth, Fall of Mankind, Earthrise...
So what I'm hearing is you guys are coming up with nothing. You're seriously going to claim that these games were hyped up to be the savior of sandbox fans leading up to their release? Honestly?
Originally posted by Quirhid Mortal Online, Xsyon, Heaven & Hearth, Fallen Earth, Fall of Mankind, Earthrise...
So what I'm hearing is you guys are coming up with nothing. You're seriously going to claim that these games were hyped up to be the savior of sandbox fans leading up to their release? Honestly?
This is when you stop debating or arguing. Let people decide for themselves at this point. Ok?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Originally posted by Quirhid Mortal Online, Xsyon, Heaven & Hearth, Fallen Earth, Fall of Mankind, Earthrise...
So what I'm hearing is you guys are coming up with nothing. You're seriously going to claim that these games were hyped up to be the savior of sandbox fans leading up to their release? Honestly?
This is when you stop debating or arguing. Let people decide for themselves at this point. Ok?
Look, if it's at a point of "agree to disagree" then that's fine. I just want to make sure that they're claiming that heaven and hearth etc is a game that the sandbox community held up as "THE ONE."
Originally posted by Quirhid Mortal Online, Xsyon, Heaven & Hearth, Fallen Earth, Fall of Mankind, Earthrise...
So what I'm hearing is you guys are coming up with nothing. You're seriously going to claim that these games were hyped up to be the savior of sandbox fans leading up to their release? Honestly?
This is when you stop debating or arguing. Let people decide for themselves at this point. Ok?
Look, if it's at a point of "agree to disagree" then that's fine. I just want to make sure that they're claiming that heaven and hearth etc is a game that the sandbox community held up as "THE ONE."
Of coarse he did. Conversation over. Now let it ride.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Originally posted by FinalFikus Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by FinalFikusOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally 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.I can't argue with any of that.
We only get half of the story on this end and 90% of it is spin.
World sim with the game built around it is not what people want. I should except that.
Thanks for responding in a kind manner. I appreciate your patience with us.
Well fine.
UO tried the "old school" route, and they only made it to 250k by adding Trammel and letting Feluca become a wasteland.
EQ tried the "old school" route and got thoroughly trounced by EQ2 & WoW.
Pick any "old school" MMORPG, even the ones that were AAA games and the same pattern repeats itself.
People keep bringing up this "old school" market and how great it is. If this were true, there should be some evidence to support it, other than the cries of of the disenfranchised on forums.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
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.
Then please do explain your position again, only differently. I've given you that courtesy over a dozen times (although in vain).
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.
I pick on those little phrases because your arguments rests on them. There's no point in entertaining wild theories and claims when I can direct my attention where it all went wrong. I'd rather treat the disease, not the symptom, you see?
I would be shocked to find out if you didn't care much about the validity of your rationale. Do you even care if your logic is sound when the conclusion you've arrived to is the one you want. Not the correct one, not the most likely one, but the one you like the most. And you act like its the truth.
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.
You say WoW is dumbed down or watered down. You say they're not as deep as... whatever game you happen to like. And you've tried very hard to make a distinction between popular games and "good games". It is like anything you don't enjoy yourself can't be good.
Look at your posts. You are very rude.
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.
Hey that "one coder", the indie dev? He was also the designer. He was a one man project. But I am anxious to find out: How do you know a design is good?
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.
I guess I didn't make my view clear enough here or in the other thread so let me explain again:
The statement "Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean its true" is by no means sensible or intuitive because it implies that if I should want to prove the argument false, I would have to provide the evidence. Rather than you providing proof of positive you require me to proof the negative. Its just not good practice.
If we all operated the same way. Any argument could be considered true. It is the flying spaghetti monster argument. I can't prove that there is no FSM. But like the FSM argument, yours is so weak, so unlikely, that it crosses my threshold over to fiction.
Hopefully you'll now understand how comical it is to watch you defend such arguments like they were a certainty.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Quirhid Mortal Online, Xsyon, Heaven & Hearth, Fallen Earth, Fall of Mankind, Earthrise...
So what I'm hearing is you guys are coming up with nothing. You're seriously going to claim that these games were hyped up to be the savior of sandbox fans leading up to their release? Honestly?
This is when you stop debating or arguing. Let people decide for themselves at this point. Ok?
Look, if it's at a point of "agree to disagree" then that's fine. I just want to make sure that they're claiming that heaven and hearth etc is a game that the sandbox community held up as "THE ONE."
Of coarse he did. Conversation over. Now let it ride.
Apparently you missed all the hype.
Huh...
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I seem to have a different definition to "old School mmo" than many here. When I hear I hear/read old school (for me pre-wow) I hearken back to the days when EVERY single one on the market FELT different, PLAYED differently, LOOKED different and and stayed true to it's core audience. Back then initial investments were small enough most were willing to risk breaking new ground, it wasn't a cash cow to be squeezed. Even Wow was an experiment in regards to the ease of access. After that we've pretty much had the same recycled ideas for over a decade with one or two gimmicks thrown in to be marketed as "different".
I seriously doubt there will be any AAA mmos in the future; theme sandbox or hybrid, that feel much different. As long as you have that huge front end investment hurdle there; risk is something you aint gonna see. Now I can see approaches like EVE's(I don't play it but I agree with their approach) working well long-term. Ie start small, stay with the plan come hell/high-water, but what you do build do so to the best of your limits. Then grow from there over time.
Correct me If I'm wrong but isn't EVE the only mmo out there still that has had a consistent upward track long-term? While It sounds like I'm shilling for EVE maybe I am un-intentionally I actually dislike the the game play but that's because it was never marketed towards me and I'm cool with that. I just wish other developers/pubs would follow that roadmap instead of being blinded by $ signs they aren't likely to see, Ask TOR developers how that one turned out.
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.
I can't argue with any of that.
We only get half of the story on this end and 90% of it is spin.
World sim with the game built around it is not what people want. I should except that.
Thanks for responding in a kind manner. I appreciate your patience with us.
Well fine.
UO tried the "old school" route, and they only made it to 250k by adding Trammel and letting Feluca become a wasteland.
EQ tried the "old school" route and got thoroughly trounced by EQ2 & WoW.
Pick any "old school" MMORPG, even the ones that were AAA games and the same pattern repeats itself.
People keep bringing up this "old school" market and how great it is. If this were true, there should be some evidence to support it, other than the cries of of the disenfranchised on forums.
Lol, you are comparing old games to new games. I think most people are talking about moving the genre forward down a different path. The problem is most people can't wrap their minds around the concept of a path outside of following WoW casual gaming.
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.
I can't argue with any of that.
We only get half of the story on this end and 90% of it is spin.
World sim with the game built around it is not what people want. I should except that.
Thanks for responding in a kind manner. I appreciate your patience with us.
Well fine.
UO tried the "old school" route, and they only made it to 250k by adding Trammel and letting Feluca become a wasteland.
EQ tried the "old school" route and got thoroughly trounced by EQ2 & WoW.
Pick any "old school" MMORPG, even the ones that were AAA games and the same pattern repeats itself.
People keep bringing up this "old school" market and how great it is. If this were true, there should be some evidence to support it, other than the cries of of the disenfranchised on forums.
lets forget about old school and talk about the new school.
Tell us of your successes. There is WOW of coarse.
Eq2- no one plays anymore either- join the old school
DDO- fail
LORTO- no one plays anymore either-join the old school
WAR-dead
AOC-no one plays anymore either-join the old school
Tabla rasa-dead
Vangaurd-fail
Final fantasy- looks like it will join the old school
Rift-joins the old school
Star trek-join the old school
COH-dead
Aion- joins the old school at least here
Fallen earth-old school
Guild wars 1- not an mmorpg but sold a lot of boxes
Guild wars 2 -sold a lot of boxes
Star wars old republic- lol
unless you count box sales then you could only make a comparison if old school games were marketed at all let alone evenly. And at a time when more than nerds played games on the PC over dial up connections (wanna use the phone).
Plus the old school games need all the knowledge and trial and error of previous mmorpg makers. Plus all the new tech.
Basically you cant know unless a new refined and polished game with old school features (freedom and open world) were made today. World sims with games built around them.
Im sure Im wrong about all the newer games. They make more in a week than UO ever did right? It didn't make any money for EA over its 15+ year life span. EQ definitely didn't make sony any money.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Originally posted by Quirhid Mortal Online, Xsyon, Heaven & Hearth, Fallen Earth, Fall of Mankind, Earthrise...
So what I'm hearing is you guys are coming up with nothing. You're seriously going to claim that these games were hyped up to be the savior of sandbox fans leading up to their release? Honestly?
This is when you stop debating or arguing. Let people decide for themselves at this point. Ok?
Look, if it's at a point of "agree to disagree" then that's fine. I just want to make sure that they're claiming that heaven and hearth etc is a game that the sandbox community held up as "THE ONE."
Of coarse he did. Conversation over. Now let it ride.
Apparently you missed all the hype.
Huh...
Sure. You win.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
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.
Then please do explain your position again, only differently. I've given you that courtesy over a dozen times (although in vain).
What courtesy are you talking about? In this very discussion you've been ignoring 90% of what I've been saying, and the 10% you do respond to either has little bearing on the overall discussion or you just flat out don't understand.
And I'm not going to explain anything differently, I'm going to repost what I said the FIRST time. This after you said I had no rational arguments to back up what I say:
"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."
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.
I pick on those little phrases because your arguments rests on them. There's no point in entertaining wild theories and claims when I can direct my attention where it all went wrong. I'd rather treat the disease, not the symptom, you see?
I would be shocked to find out if you didn't care much about the validity of your rationale. Do you even care if your logic is sound when the conclusion you've arrived to is the one you want. Not the correct one, not the most likely one, but the one you like the most. And you act like its the truth.
WRONG. Pretty much every time you're ignoring the points my argument rests on and leading us off into a bunny trail that doesn't matter.
And there are no "wild theories" here. Please do tell me what wild theories I've presented, because my "theories" are all extremely tame. In fact at this point I'm pretty sure you're just attributing everything a sandbox advocate has said to me.
You can keep insisting that I skew arguments or evidence to fit my opinion, but you never point out how. Every one of my posts is FAR MORE exhaustive than the best of yours. Did you ever consider that you're the one that has an agenda? That you just flat out don't like how bluntly and directly I argue that you'll do or say anything to make it look like I'm wrong? Because so far you've said some pretty indefensible things in your ongoing crusade against me. You said WoW had no effect on the market. You said Haven and Hearth was touted as "THE ONE" by sandbox advocates.
I defend my positions vehemently simply because I choose them carefully and sparingly. I'm not just posting theories willy nilly only to have to eat my words.
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.
You say WoW is dumbed down or watered down. You say they're not as deep as... whatever game you happen to like. And you've tried very hard to make a distinction between popular games and "good games". It is like anything you don't enjoy yourself can't be good.
Look at your posts. You are very rude.
I'm rude when other people are rude. If you're going to be arrogant and condescending while at the same time ignore things when you can't think of anything to say to them, then you've given up your right to play the victim.
Saying a game is watered down or dumbed down is NOT inherently rude. What is it with you and this over the top PC attitude? It's rude to say something is inferior to something else? My gosh man, if somebody is offended by that, they need thicker skin. And by the way, one of my best friends who I've known for half of my life LOVES WoW. Again, you're projecting some kind of personality onto me that doesn't exist.
Also, I do indeed think some things are good even though I don't enjoy them. EvE mainly. Also some TV shows like Homeland. Mmmm I never could get into Harry Potter, but I acknowledge that they're good books. Again, you're just assuming things about me because it fits your narrative.
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.
Hey that "one coder", the indie dev? He was also the designer. He was a one man project. But I am anxious to find out: How do you know a design is good?
If he's making decisions that involve blatantly copying other games then I'm going to point that out. I'm not saying if he writes code then he's off-limits from people criticizing him. I'm saying I'm not criticizing the person that has nothing to do with my criticisms. If there's some young guy working at X Company doing his job and creating the content he's supposed to create, I'm not criticizing him. This isn't Nazi Germany, I'm not expecting him to make a point and stand up to whoever is responsible for what I think are bad decisions. That really should be obvious.
And how do you expect me to answer a vague question like that? The question is about if I've been insulting to developers. And I'm saying I'm only addressing the people in charge of the things I'm criticizing. Again, should be intuitive, but somehow you don't get it. You seem to think some indie developer is going to get distraught when I put down bigger, greedier developers and praise indie developers....
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.
I guess I didn't make my view clear enough here or in the other thread so let me explain again:
The statement "Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean its true" is by no means sensible or intuitive because it implies that if I should want to prove the argument false, I would have to provide the evidence. Rather than you providing proof of positive you require me to proof the negative. Its just not good practice.
If we all operated the same way. Any argument could be considered true. It is the flying spaghetti monster argument. I can't prove that there is no FSM. But like the FSM argument, yours is so weak, so unlikely, that it crosses my threshold over to fiction.
Hopefully you'll now understand how comical it is to watch you defend such arguments like they were a certainty.
You most certainly did NOT make yourself clear because you never spoke a word about it.
And now that you have, let me explain why you're wrong. Saying "Just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true" absolutely does NOT imply that you have to prove me wrong. What it DOES imply (or even outright says, actually) is that just because you've shown that I haven't proven it, doesn't mean it isn't true. In other words, some things are never meant to be presented as provable facts... hell, the vast MAJORITY of posts on this website and sentences uttered in the real world fit that exact description, that doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about it, it doesn't mean it's not true.
Example: I could say that Breaking Bad is going to win an Emmy for best drama next year. I could give a number of subjective reasons why I think that... and it also just happens to be a very sensible position that a lot of people would probably agree on. Now, just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Does this seem like a statement that isn't sensible or intuitive? Whether it IS true or not isn't even the point saying that. The point of saying it is that just because you've shown that isn't a provable or knowable fact, doesn't mean it's wrong. I said the quote in question specifically to YOU because of your tendency to just deny deny deny without taking a stance in the actual discussion.
UO tried the "old school" route, and they only made it to 250k by adding Trammel and letting Feluca become a wasteland.
EQ tried the "old school" route and got thoroughly trounced by EQ2 & WoW.
Pick any "old school" MMORPG, even the ones that were AAA games and the same pattern repeats itself.
People keep bringing up this "old school" market and how great it is. If this were true, there should be some evidence to support it, other than the cries of of the disenfranchised on forums.
Lol, you are comparing old games to new games. I think most people are talking about moving the genre forward down a different path. The problem is most people can't wrap their minds around the concept of a path outside of following WoW casual gaming.
Yup, this is a point that is so often overlooked. I feel like a lot of this started with UO's decision to introduce Trammel in the face of the supposed "hemmorrhaging playerbase." As if there weren't organic, simulation-based, sandbox ways to deal with rampant PKs. Raph Koster himself said Trammel wouldn't have been his first choice and some of the natural next steps for UO in his mind would have been things like player cities and sieging.
Example: I could say that Breaking Bad is going to win an Emmy for best drama next year. I could give a number of subjective reasons why I think that... and it also just happens to be a very sensible position that a lot of people would probably agree on. Now, just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Does this seem like a statement that isn't sensible or intuitive? Whether it IS true or not isn't even the point saying that. The point of saying it is that just because you've shown that isn't a provable or knowable fact, doesn't mean it's wrong. I said the quote in question specifically to YOU because of your tendency to just deny deny deny without taking a stance in the actual discussion.
You're not the only one that makes the above mistakes. It's RAMPANT here. I'm trying to discern whether it's the result of a lack of command of the language or the inability to differentiate between opinion and fact.
What I think Quirhid is pointing out is that you present opinion as fact, and then base your conclusion on what you have derived from that.
"Now, just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Does this seem like a statement that isn't sensible or intuitive?"
The issue there is that you are saying that it is true, thus the reasonable request for you to provide proof that it is.
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
No he didn't loktofiet. He clearly stated "whether it is true or not" in the very next sentence. C'mon. Im not even reading most of it and I had no problem understanding. Im stupid too.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Comments
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.
It's not an assumption to say that people played this kind of game before so it stands to reason that without new data you can expect people to play them again. Yes some of those people who used to play may not play now (which I've acknowledged from the start), but there are also people who weren't playing before who would play now (which you keep conveniently ignoring). You're making the assumption.and your market argument is flawed because you don't account for WoW's success skewing the market towards themeparks.
I can't argue with any of that.
We only get half of the story on this end and 90% of it is spin.
World sim with the game built around it is not what people want. I should except that.
Thanks for responding in a kind manner. I appreciate your patience with us.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Instead, it might be a good idea to go research some other games that show true promise because they aren't funded by the big investors and are doing things never before seen. There is NO reason that we can't be given more in these games. None, other than laziness and greed.
- UO peaked out at 250k
- EVE currently 500k,
- EQ 450k+
- Asherons call 120k
- DAoC 250k Final Fantasy XI 500k+ Lineage 1.. 1.4million worldwide Lineage 2... 1.3million worldwide SWG 1 million boxes sold, no idea on sub numbers
Thats 4.7million people without taking into account SWG because I don't know where it was in subscriber numbers, or some of the other games unlisted. Don't say anything about Lineage 1 or 2 worldwide either because if you neglect that then you certainly have to neglect the 6 million that WoW has in China. Its not like these people died or just disappeared so is their a market for the more hardcore? Even if only a third of that number played the game it would still be more popular than the second most popular themepark game, so I would say yes. Not to mention the new crowd isn't all going to be in the new kids crowd; there are going to be people that play the games like WoW and want more and realize they really do want something akin to the old school. It is also tiring seeing people gauge a Companies success off of a games sub number. It doesn't work that way. If a game is pulling profit after 3+ years it is a success; it doesn't matter if they have 120 subs or 120k subs, from a business standpoint it was a success.Excellent points cookie monster
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Oh I know. there is no reason a big developer cant make a "world sim with the game built around it", other than their experience and metrics.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
You asked a question.
"What game did we sandbox players point to as being "the one"?"
"So tell me, what sandbox game came out that we all claimed was going to be the big one?"
I answered that. You even went as far as to give the exact scenario of excited prior and then disappointed with what was delivered on release
"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."
however when given the direct answer to your question, based exactly on the very scenario you presented, you reject the list because... they fit that scenario.
You then go on to defend against some aspersion of your credibility.
When someone gives you an answer you don't like, you either talk in circles or claim they are attacking you. When they give up trying, you decry them for "tucking tail and running away."
The worst part of it is that you are obviously rather intelligent, and the opportunity for some incredible discussions is actually possible if you would actually try to have a discussion rather than look for ways to deflect anything that doesn't agree with your own preconceptions.
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
That list is pretty ridiculous.
I think you made the perpetuum devs year including them.
Darkfall is the only one there that could be considered over hyped. I was hooked on that game until we got tossed, so it was fine for me.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I'm not sure what circles you're talking about. Over half of that list isn't out. The other half I don't agree that we as a sandbox community over hyped. Perpetuum, really? As others have pointed out, the only one even close was Darkfall. I would say that darkfall ended up not being a true sandbox, but if you want to put that on us as a game that we were excited for and turned out to be wrong, I'm not gonna argue with that. But it definitely matters if the game comes out and it's not what we were expecting. That's not sandbox games failing or us having some insatiable desire to go back to the way things were, only to find out that it's unattainable.
I feel like you guys make points and then forget the context in which they're being made. The claim is that there's some cycle that keeps occurring where we get super excited about some game, and then it fails or then we get bored with it. This is just not true. Darkfall is a good example of us (me at least) getting excited about a game, and then getting bored with it because it's NOT a sandbox.
Have you ever thought that maybe you guys are wrong? You guys love to say we're just being stubborn, but every time I post I'm backing up my thought process with reason. For instance: a lot of those games aren't out. Also: I didn't even KNOW about perpetuum until it was already out. Age of Wushu I didn't even realize it was a sort of sandbox until it was out. Everything I've heard about Age of Wushu has come from people telling me about it after it was already out. I'm not sure how any of this fits into us getting hyped about a game until it turns out the game sucks or fails or whatever.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
So what I'm hearing is you guys are coming up with nothing. You're seriously going to claim that these games were hyped up to be the savior of sandbox fans leading up to their release? Honestly?
This is when you stop debating or arguing. Let people decide for themselves at this point. Ok?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Look, if it's at a point of "agree to disagree" then that's fine. I just want to make sure that they're claiming that heaven and hearth etc is a game that the sandbox community held up as "THE ONE."
Of coarse he did. Conversation over. Now let it ride.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
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.
I can't argue with any of that.
We only get half of the story on this end and 90% of it is spin.
World sim with the game built around it is not what people want. I should except that.
Thanks for responding in a kind manner. I appreciate your patience with us.
Well fine.
UO tried the "old school" route, and they only made it to 250k by adding Trammel and letting Feluca become a wasteland.
EQ tried the "old school" route and got thoroughly trounced by EQ2 & WoW.
Pick any "old school" MMORPG, even the ones that were AAA games and the same pattern repeats itself.
People keep bringing up this "old school" market and how great it is. If this were true, there should be some evidence to support it, other than the cries of of the disenfranchised on forums.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I guess I didn't make my view clear enough here or in the other thread so let me explain again:
The statement "Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean its true" is by no means sensible or intuitive because it implies that if I should want to prove the argument false, I would have to provide the evidence. Rather than you providing proof of positive you require me to proof the negative. Its just not good practice.
If we all operated the same way. Any argument could be considered true. It is the flying spaghetti monster argument. I can't prove that there is no FSM. But like the FSM argument, yours is so weak, so unlikely, that it crosses my threshold over to fiction.
Hopefully you'll now understand how comical it is to watch you defend such arguments like they were a certainty.I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Apparently you missed all the hype.
Huh...
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I seem to have a different definition to "old School mmo" than many here. When I hear I hear/read old school (for me pre-wow) I hearken back to the days when EVERY single one on the market FELT different, PLAYED differently, LOOKED different and and stayed true to it's core audience. Back then initial investments were small enough most were willing to risk breaking new ground, it wasn't a cash cow to be squeezed. Even Wow was an experiment in regards to the ease of access. After that we've pretty much had the same recycled ideas for over a decade with one or two gimmicks thrown in to be marketed as "different".
I seriously doubt there will be any AAA mmos in the future; theme sandbox or hybrid, that feel much different. As long as you have that huge front end investment hurdle there; risk is something you aint gonna see. Now I can see approaches like EVE's(I don't play it but I agree with their approach) working well long-term. Ie start small, stay with the plan come hell/high-water, but what you do build do so to the best of your limits. Then grow from there over time.
Correct me If I'm wrong but isn't EVE the only mmo out there still that has had a consistent upward track long-term? While It sounds like I'm shilling for EVE maybe I am un-intentionally I actually dislike the the game play but that's because it was never marketed towards me and I'm cool with that. I just wish other developers/pubs would follow that roadmap instead of being blinded by $ signs they aren't likely to see, Ask TOR developers how that one turned out.
Lol, you are comparing old games to new games. I think most people are talking about moving the genre forward down a different path. The problem is most people can't wrap their minds around the concept of a path outside of following WoW casual gaming.
lets forget about old school and talk about the new school.
Tell us of your successes. There is WOW of coarse.
Eq2- no one plays anymore either- join the old school
DDO- fail
LORTO- no one plays anymore either-join the old school
WAR-dead
AOC-no one plays anymore either-join the old school
Tabla rasa-dead
Vangaurd-fail
Final fantasy- looks like it will join the old school
Rift-joins the old school
Star trek-join the old school
COH-dead
Aion- joins the old school at least here
Fallen earth-old school
Guild wars 1- not an mmorpg but sold a lot of boxes
Guild wars 2 -sold a lot of boxes
Star wars old republic- lol
unless you count box sales then you could only make a comparison if old school games were marketed at all let alone evenly. And at a time when more than nerds played games on the PC over dial up connections (wanna use the phone).
Plus the old school games need all the knowledge and trial and error of previous mmorpg makers. Plus all the new tech.
Basically you cant know unless a new refined and polished game with old school features (freedom and open world) were made today. World sims with games built around them.
Im sure Im wrong about all the newer games. They make more in a week than UO ever did right? It didn't make any money for EA over its 15+ year life span. EQ definitely didn't make sony any money.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Sure. You win.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
You most certainly did NOT make yourself clear because you never spoke a word about it.
And now that you have, let me explain why you're wrong. Saying "Just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true" absolutely does NOT imply that you have to prove me wrong. What it DOES imply (or even outright says, actually) is that just because you've shown that I haven't proven it, doesn't mean it isn't true. In other words, some things are never meant to be presented as provable facts... hell, the vast MAJORITY of posts on this website and sentences uttered in the real world fit that exact description, that doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about it, it doesn't mean it's not true.
Example: I could say that Breaking Bad is going to win an Emmy for best drama next year. I could give a number of subjective reasons why I think that... and it also just happens to be a very sensible position that a lot of people would probably agree on. Now, just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Does this seem like a statement that isn't sensible or intuitive? Whether it IS true or not isn't even the point saying that. The point of saying it is that just because you've shown that isn't a provable or knowable fact, doesn't mean it's wrong. I said the quote in question specifically to YOU because of your tendency to just deny deny deny without taking a stance in the actual discussion.
Yup, this is a point that is so often overlooked. I feel like a lot of this started with UO's decision to introduce Trammel in the face of the supposed "hemmorrhaging playerbase." As if there weren't organic, simulation-based, sandbox ways to deal with rampant PKs. Raph Koster himself said Trammel wouldn't have been his first choice and some of the natural next steps for UO in his mind would have been things like player cities and sieging.
You're not the only one that makes the above mistakes. It's RAMPANT here. I'm trying to discern whether it's the result of a lack of command of the language or the inability to differentiate between opinion and fact.
What I think Quirhid is pointing out is that you present opinion as fact, and then base your conclusion on what you have derived from that.
"Now, just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Does this seem like a statement that isn't sensible or intuitive?"
The issue there is that you are saying that it is true, thus the reasonable request for you to provide proof that it is.
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
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"