You have a lot of good points (and some really great links), however it's still up to the players that want a particular type of game to make the developers aware they exist.
It's not exactly well received when we make our preferences known and clear.
Doesn't help that those preferences are as different from one another as they are from the norm. Who is "we?" To say that mmorpg players are divided in their opinions is a massively multi-layer online understatement.
No, they aren't. They are different from one another as all preferences are. But the variation in preferences among sandbox fans or "oldschool" fans isn't greater than the variation between any one of them and the "norm" aka themepark quest hub games.
For God's sake when are people going to realize that Developers and Publishers are not the same f***ing thing?
Developers have had their balls in a vice when it comes to making games for a decade. Developers do not fund their own games 90% of the time. And because Developers do not fund their own games, they do not get to choose what games they make. They have had no choice in the matter of creating an old-school MMO. None! Nada!
Why has crowd-funding and Kickstarter become so popular recently? Because customers AND Developers are fighting back against Publishers. Studios are sick and tired of being told what to do and how to do it by institutions only interested in turning massive profits. Developers are turning directly to gamers to get the games they want to make completed because they can't get funds from Publishers when it's not a guaranteed 100 million dollar profit margin.
So no, we don't need to convince Developers to make the game we want. We have to convince them to ditch Publishers who refuse to make anything other than World of Warcraft and Call of Duty. Because I guarantee you that there are many Developers who would love to make an old-school MMO.
Please watch the following conferences and videos to understand what the hell is going on right now.
You have a lot of good points (and some really great links), however it's still up to the players that want a particular type of game to make the developers aware they exist.
I like the older JRPGs. I like the phased combat and the graphics style. There's possibly a lot of others here in NA that do, but since there's no real way to identify how many of us there are, other than JPRG sales here which are relatively low for most titles, it's highly unlikely that any dev is going to consider making one.
When we are avid fans of a niche design, we do need to convince the developers we are out there and we do need to show them our numbers, otherwise the games we want simply won't be made. Even when devs - garage, indie, publisher-backed or otherwise - take a risk on a new direction, they do so with some kind of data on the size of the audience (and thus, the amount of revenue) they are looking at. Taking a chance on the assumption that there might be people who want the product without any kind of numbers isn't risk - it's stupidity.
This reminds me I have to see how Legend of Grimrock 2 is coming along.
Thanks for the props and I hope everyone here does check out those links. Especially the Chris Roberts one, which really sums up the truth regarding PC-Gaming in the last 15 years.
I agree with you that it's also up the players to let the developers know that they want a game. But I am very aggressive in pointing out that in the defense of developers, many of them already know what games are wanted. These guys read the forums - they are part of the community. They love making these games - they're passionate about it. The developers are not even remotely like the publishers. Many developers would make games even if they only broke even on cost, simply because they're artists expressing their talent. They just can't do it, because nothing is free in the world. But that's changing now with crowd-funding.
I just want to be clear on that point. We should embrace helping developers, not accusing them. Developers are victims, just like the gamers, of the greedy and moronic publishers that are totally out the loop. If we really want a game made, the best thing to do is create a website and start a community and a petition to show our interest in a particular game. Even reach out via mail and phone calls to developers - letting them know that we'd support a Kickstarter campain.
You have a lot of good points (and some really great links), however it's still up to the players that want a particular type of game to make the developers aware they exist.
It's not exactly well received when we make our preferences known and clear.
This is not true. How do we know the minds of Developers? They are beholden to the Publishers - they have no choice in the decision of whether or not to make a game.
Click those links and listen to the stories that MAJOR industry developers tell about their experiences with publishers. They talk about how there is a huge demand for certain games, but they still get denied funding because it's not "Angry Birds". This is really what's been happening for 10 years. But now things are changing with crowd-funding. If we just roll over and give up now we'd be foolish - this is the best opportunity that we've had to see what we want made in 15 years. We should take advantage of it.
You have a lot of good points (and some really great links), however it's still up to the players that want a particular type of game to make the developers aware they exist.
It's not exactly well received when we make our preferences known and clear.
This is not true. How do we know the minds of Developers? They are beholden to the Publishers - they have no choice in the decision of whether or not to make a game.
Click those links and listen to the stories that MAJOR industry developers tell about their experiences with publishers. They talk about how there is a huge demand for certain games, but they still get denied funding because it's not "Angry Birds". This is really what's been happening for 10 years. But now things are changing with crowd-funding. If we just roll over and give up now we'd be foolish - this is the best opportunity that we've had to see what we want made in 15 years. We should take advantage of it.
I meant it's not well received by people on this site. I totally agree that voicing your opinion here and anywhere else contributes at least in some small way to letting developers et al know that we exist.
You have a lot of good points (and some really great links), however it's still up to the players that want a particular type of game to make the developers aware they exist.
It's not exactly well received when we make our preferences known and clear.
This is not true. How do we know the minds of Developers? They are beholden to the Publishers - they have no choice in the decision of whether or not to make a game.
Click those links and listen to the stories that MAJOR industry developers tell about their experiences with publishers. They talk about how there is a huge demand for certain games, but they still get denied funding because it's not "Angry Birds". This is really what's been happening for 10 years. But now things are changing with crowd-funding. If we just roll over and give up now we'd be foolish - this is the best opportunity that we've had to see what we want made in 15 years. We should take advantage of it.
I meant it's not well received by people on this site. I totally agree that voicing your opinion here and anywhere else contributes at least in some small way to letting developers et al know that we exist.
Oops. Heh, misunderstood you and sounds like we're in agreement.
Originally posted by PerfArt Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Loktofeit
You have a lot of good points (and some really great links), however it's still up to the players that want a particular type of game to make the developers aware they exist.
It's not exactly well received when we make our preferences known and clear.
Doesn't help that those preferences are as different from one another as they are from the norm. Who is "we?" To say that mmorpg players are divided in their opinions is a massively multi-layer online understatement.
No, they aren't. They are different from one another as all preferences are. But the variation in preferences among sandbox fans or "oldschool" fans isn't greater than the variation between any one of them and the "norm" aka themepark quest hub games.
Matter of perspective I guess. I think they are where it counts.
http://www.tibia.com Fairly oldschool MMO, was over a decade since i played so i cant say too much about its current status. But it has 21k+ online players right now.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by Icewhite Find a way to demonstrate a larger market share than "50 old me-too grumblers that can be found frequenting this site".Find a way to demonstrate possible acceptance for something other than games we've already had.Genuinely new ideas.
There really just needs to be enough interest to support the game being written. Perpetuum is running on less than 5,000 people, and I think Mortal Online is the same way, though Perpetuum runs a lot better than Mortal Online. It is certainly possible to write a game, even an MMORPG, for a small number of people, and do it in such a way that those people enjoy the game.
I think the problem with the views on this site is the idea that there is a group of people number in the tens or hundreds of thousands that is also so hidden that it doesn't register on any developer's radar is ludicrous. So is the idea that there are investors willing to invest the millions of dollars it would take to write a game for a target audience of tens or hundreds of thousands of people. I agree that this has some truth. And that is the hard part, coming up with factual numbers in print.
If there was an old-time MMORPG that enough players "agreed with" for the design and features, numbers could be presented. I really do not see this scenario ever happening
What messes up number comparisons is that no one knows why players leave or stay with any MMO. Did EQ's numbers start falling because players went to WoW, or because they introduced WoW elements into EQ? Probably a bit of both, maybe even more to one side than the other.
Why did old MMOROG's populations start to drop? Did players get busy IRL? Did they find a better MMO? Did they get bored? There are many reasons why they may have stopped playing.
And the final kicker, how many old-time MMORPG players play new MMOs just to be in an MMO, therefor adding to the new MMO numbers, but not really finding the game they desire to play? Speaking only for myself, I have a lot of F2P new MMO accounts scattered about the the MMO industry. Even though I am not playing them, the accounts are there and being counted. I am one of 30 million players Wizard101 claims, even though I have not logged in about 2 years. MMO companies are not very open with their player numbers, especially F2P games with no monthly sub income to look at in financial reports.
While what you two are saying is true to some extent, it cannot be held up as "written in stone" as many like to make it out. There are too many assumptions for my taste to blindly the numbers (almost any numbers) presented.
If MMO publishers used numbers solely, they would have never worked on mass producing light bulbs, quite simply because, nobody bought them until they were made. I don't think hamburger ice cream would be good. Who knows, maybe there are millions of people out there wanting that specific item?
My point being, if publishers do not try the market, how can they be sure there is no market?
Publishers have tried the market. They started the market. They know more about the market than anyone in these forums.
When an "old school" style game funds itself, or gets funded through crowd funding, then there will be proof that the market exists. Star Citizen shows that there's a market for whatever kind of game SC is and that crowd funding is a way to tap into their market. To the best of my knowledge, other than tech demos, no "old school" style game has actually gotten funded. Certainly not an MMORPG.
When is this market going to decloak and show itself? When are they going to crowd fund an "old school" game instead of barely funding a tech demo of an "old school" style game? Where is the "old school" MMORPG website or video game site? Where are the thousands of registered users on that website? If the market was there, if those people existed in large numbers, and those people were aware of the internet, there would be a Facebook group, Twitter feed, Tumblr feed, Blog with many followers or an entire website dedicated to it. There would be something. Where is it? Ten people on an MMORPG forum to not a market make.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Holophonist Who decided that the only indicator for whether or not a market exists is if a game can be successfully crowd funded?
I'm sorry I must have missed where anyone said or even implied in any way at all that was the only indication or even the main indication.
Lizardbones just said that crowdfunding was one of the many.
Can you point where this was indicated?
Well then I must have missed where he said it was one of many.
EDIT: If you're looking for a quote: "When an "old school" style game funds itself, or gets funded through crowd funding, then there will be proof that the market exists."
Originally posted by Icewhite Find a way to demonstrate a larger market share than "50 old me-too grumblers that can be found frequenting this site".
Find a way to demonstrate possible acceptance for something other than games we've already had.
Genuinely new ideas.
There really just needs to be enough interest to support the game being written. Perpetuum is running on less than 5,000 people, and I think Mortal Online is the same way, though Perpetuum runs a lot better than Mortal Online. It is certainly possible to write a game, even an MMORPG, for a small number of people, and do it in such a way that those people enjoy the game.
I think the problem with the views on this site is the idea that there is a group of people number in the tens or hundreds of thousands that is also so hidden that it doesn't register on any developer's radar is ludicrous. So is the idea that there are investors willing to invest the millions of dollars it would take to write a game for a target audience of tens or hundreds of thousands of people.
I agree that this has some truth. And that is the hard part, coming up with factual numbers in print.
If there was an old-time MMORPG that enough players "agreed with" for the design and features, numbers could be presented. I really do not see this scenario ever happening
What messes up number comparisons is that no one knows why players leave or stay with any MMO. Did EQ's numbers start falling because players went to WoW, or because they introduced WoW elements into EQ? Probably a bit of both, maybe even more to one side than the other.
Why did old MMOROG's populations start to drop? Did players get busy IRL? Did they find a better MMO? Did they get bored? There are many reasons why they may have stopped playing.
And the final kicker, how many old-time MMORPG players play new MMOs just to be in an MMO, therefor adding to the new MMO numbers, but not really finding the game they desire to play? Speaking only for myself, I have a lot of F2P new MMO accounts scattered about the the MMO industry. Even though I am not playing them, the accounts are there and being counted. I am one of 30 million players Wizard101 claims, even though I have not logged in about 2 years. MMO companies are not very open with their player numbers, especially F2P games with no monthly sub income to look at in financial reports.
While what you two are saying is true to some extent, it cannot be held up as "written in stone" as many like to make it out. There are too many assumptions for my taste to blindly the numbers (almost any numbers) presented.
If MMO publishers used numbers solely, they would have never worked on mass producing light bulbs, quite simply because, nobody bought them until they were made. I don't think hamburger ice cream would be good. Who knows, maybe there are millions of people out there wanting that specific item?
My point being, if publishers do not try the market, how can they be sure there is no market?
Publishers have tried the market. They started the market. They know more about the market than anyone in these forums.
When an "old school" style game funds itself, or gets funded through crowd funding, then there will be proof that the market exists. Star Citizen shows that there's a market for whatever kind of game SC is and that crowd funding is a way to tap into their market. To the best of my knowledge, other than tech demos, no "old school" style game has actually gotten funded. Certainly not an MMORPG.
When is this market going to decloak and show itself? When are they going to crowd fund an "old school" game instead of barely funding a tech demo of an "old school" style game? Where is the "old school" MMORPG website or video game site? Where are the thousands of registered users on that website? If the market was there, if those people existed in large numbers, and those people were aware of the internet, there would be a Facebook group, Twitter feed, Tumblr feed, Blog with many followers or an entire website dedicated to it. There would be something. Where is it? Ten people on an MMORPG forum to not a market make.
Crowd-funding is a brand new phenom. It's literally less than 2 years old . . . Just this week the spiritual sequel to Myst & Riven started it's crowd-funding campaign on Kickstarter and is going to be successful.
We have no idea what's going to happen. The only MMO that's been tried on Kickstarter was a rousing success and is currently in production. See Camelot Unchained.
There's plenty of room for more old-school MMO's to give it a try. And they probably will. Don't get your panties in a bunch because it hasn't happened instantly, give it a little more time.
Originally posted by Holophonist Who decided that the only indicator for whether or not a market exists is if a game can be successfully crowd funded?
I'm sorry I must have missed where anyone said or even implied in any way at all that was the only indication or even the main indication.
Lizardbones just said that crowdfunding was one of the many.
Can you point where this was indicated?
Well then I must have missed where he said it was one of many.
EDIT: If you're looking for a quote: "When an "old school" style game funds itself, or gets funded through crowd funding, then there will be proof that the market exists."
That would be proof however that statement does not state or imply that is the only proof. As for other things he said:
Self-funds
Old-school MMO website
video game site
thousands of registered uses on that website
facebook group
twitter feed
tumblr feed
blog with many followers
website dedicated to it
Those were all things he said that would/could be considered evidence or proof that the market exists. So including crowd-funding that is 10 different ways he stated. That qualifies as many.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by PWN_FACE In response to your heading question of "Any way to appeal to a developer?" this should work: $$$
When it comes to devs outside of the studio environment they already seem to be appearing in kickstarter so you could try there. But like this guy said only money talks.
Originally posted by Holophonist Who decided that the only indicator for whether or not a market exists is if a game can be successfully crowd funded?
I'm sorry I must have missed where anyone said or even implied in any way at all that was the only indication or even the main indication.
Lizardbones just said that crowdfunding was one of the many.
Can you point where this was indicated?
Well then I must have missed where he said it was one of many.
EDIT: If you're looking for a quote: "When an "old school" style game funds itself, or gets funded through crowd funding, then there will be proof that the market exists."
That would be proof however that statement does not state or imply that is the only proof. As for other things he said:
Self-funds
Old-school MMO website
video game site
thousands of registered uses on that website
facebook group
twitter feed
tumblr feed
blog with many followers
website dedicated to it
Those were all things he said that would/could be considered evidence or proof that the market exists. So including crowd-funding that is 10 different ways he stated. That qualifies as many.
Yes, it does imply that. Him spouting off things that would be happening if the market existed doesn't mean that if any of those things existed it would prove that the market exists. The quote I provided absolutely implies that crowd funding is the only way to prove that the market exists.
Example:
"Honey, once you start going to your AA meetings consistently, then that'll prove you're a changed man."
"Well... what if I just completely quit drinking on my own? I'd still be a changed man."
Originally posted by SavageHorizon And what's your description of an old school mmo, fact is their are many mmos that offer what you are looking for. Let's be honest it comes down to graphics, if it didn't you would be playing those types of mmos.
many mmo's? please name them for me.
There are not alot. and yes it comes down to grapichs and a world.
The worlds of those old mmo's are empty. that is because they are empty. People off the post-wow crowd are not gonna launch up a 13y-old game and say het that looks great lets play it.
Now a new game with grapichs of today but mehcanics and a world from the past might actually get them to play and like it.
I have been thinking the exact same thing. To me it's the content locusts who have ZERO patience and know nothing about the satisfaction one gets from earning things (gear, lvl, etc.). People who take time to smell the roses appreciate everything they earn so much more.
The hyper-casuals run from start to finish as fast as they can and don't even appreciate all a MMORPG has to offer. My first toon took me like 4 or 5 months to level, and I love every minute of it and felt oh so accomplished when I finally made it to max lvl. I miss those days so much, and I miss the world full of people, hangin out in chat, making friends running a dungeon in a group for the first time... sheer joy!
Unfortunately, the casuals also have the loudest voice and that, it seems, it what the developers listen to... the loudest voice.
I have been thinking the exact same thing. To me it's the content locusts who have ZERO patience and know nothing about the satisfaction one gets from earning things (gear, lvl, etc.). People who take time to smell the roses appreciate everything they earn so much more.
The hyper-casuals run from start to finish as fast as they can and don't even appreciate all a MMORPG has to offer. My first toon took me like 4 or 5 months to level, and I love every minute of it and felt oh so accomplished when I finally made it to max lvl. I miss those days so much, and I miss the world full of people, hangin out in chat, making friends running a dungeon in a group for the first time... sheer joy!
Unfortunately, the casuals also have the loudest voice and that, it seems, it what the developers listen to... the loudest voice.
Serious Gamers Unite!
How does a hyper casual, rush to the end. By definition "casual" doesn't really rush to anything. It sounds like you're really hung up on the word casual but from what you're saying.....you are one.
Originally posted by lizardbones Where is the "old school" MMORPG website or video game site?
www.waaaambulance.org
(sorry... couldn't resist )
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Holophonist Who decided that the only indicator for whether or not a market exists is if a game can be successfully crowd funded?
I'm sorry I must have missed where anyone said or even implied in any way at all that was the only indication or even the main indication.
Lizardbones just said that crowdfunding was one of the many.
Can you point where this was indicated?
Well then I must have missed where he said it was one of many.
EDIT: If you're looking for a quote: "When an "old school" style game funds itself, or gets funded through crowd funding, then there will be proof that the market exists."
That would be proof however that statement does not state or imply that is the only proof. As for other things he said:
Self-funds
Old-school MMO website
video game site
thousands of registered uses on that website
facebook group
twitter feed
tumblr feed
blog with many followers
website dedicated to it
Those were all things he said that would/could be considered evidence or proof that the market exists. So including crowd-funding that is 10 different ways he stated. That qualifies as many.
Yes, it does imply that. Him spouting off things that would be happening if the market existed doesn't mean that if any of those things existed it would prove that the market exists. The quote I provided absolutely implies that crowd funding is the only way to prove that the market exists.
Example:
"Honey, once you start going to your AA meetings consistently, then that'll prove you're a changed man."
"Well... what if I just completely quit drinking on my own? I'd still be a changed man."
Nope. Stating one example of many that he stated does not imply that the one example is the only one. In fact since it was just just one of many, it can be factually stated that it is only one of many ways to prove the scenario. If it was the only way, he would have stated only one example. He listed 10 examples, so there can be no implication it was the only one. I mean he listed 10, therefore it doesn't make any sense to imply that he thought there is only one. He listed 10.
And yes if any of those things existed it would prove that the market exists. Those are not the only proof, and once again he did not imply that. He just gave examples of some proof.
So far there is really no proof that a large market exists.
In your example, the first person doesn't state that is the only way. The only way to know if they believe that is the only way is to see their response. If they say no, or give another way (and lizard gave 9 other ways) then we know they do not believe there is only one way.
I don't know how you can honestly believe that he implied there is only one way to proove it, when he stated 10 different ways.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
What would be nice if we had a REAL way to appeal to a developer or to get one to Liston to a larger group. First thing everyone here would say is " hay, just e-mail them " ....Now come on you should know better.
- I'm sure many here would love to see an Old School mmo.
- I'm sure many would say not.
- I'm sure many would say the OPINIONS would be all over the place on how it should be made. We should not have to give our OPINIONS.....Let them take care of that.
Here is my take on this subject, and yes its only my OPINION :
Many here don't know any better, they think of Old School = Old game. Even if it starts out as a niche mmo, I would think it would turn out to be a huge success. None the less it would be re-original since its been so long and at the very least still be a money maker for developers.
I wish mmorpg.com could look at our cry. Do an over all assessment of topics and appeal to a developer. Because as a one we have no voice......And last, I totally believe the new saying " vote with your wallet " is bull crap. We are starving from one release to the next and we all play everyone good or bad !
As you've been told before, the problem isn't that no one hears you crying. The problem is that you have nothing to support it.
If a sizable enough group exists for a specific, detailed feature set, bring them your data on it, because they evidently don't have the data that you do. I mean, seriously... a completely untapped and profitable market? Any dev would jump on that!
As I said before your logic would be sound but we all know that the elephant in the room is World of Warcraft. You could likely come up with data that shows a sizeable group wants to play a UO style game or a EQ styled game. They still do not compare to the data by looking at the 12 million subscribers WoW brought in. I think by the design choices and the continued squeezing of that demographic despite not individually greatly out performing older games in their prime if not worst retention.
By your logic, no one would open a sushi restaurant because a fast food place would make more money. That aside, businesses deal in real numbers so, as I said, you need to bring them real numbers because what you're pitching here evidently doesn't match what they have.
Your 'elephant in the room' is only there for the people here that have no business sense and who are transferring that same lack of understanding of how businesses work onto developers and publishers. It's 2013. No one is trying to be the next WoW when it comes to making an MMORPG. If they're shooting for Top Three in any category, they're chasing the MOBA and TCG crowd now. There's no dev out there that is trying to make a "WoW killer" or even trying to come remotely close to its numbers with an MMORPG, no matter how much you want to insist that's their goal. Almost every one of them abandoned that idea back in 2008-2009 when it became obvious that your average NA/EU MMORPG is going to sustain about 50-250k subscribers. NO ONE is building for a million+ subscriber MMORPG. Yes, they will sell 700k or whatever boxes at release, but they know damn well Day 91 is not going to look that pretty.
How many people are playing EQ and Vanguard right now? Of the people that aren't playing those, are they all for the same reason? See, that's where you really need to take a step back and consider how small the numbers may be. Look at these three questions:
Do you want an Old School MMO?
Do you want long travel times, slow leveling and mob camping?
Do you want long travel times, slow leveling, mob camping, no minimap, no quest indicators and harsh death penalty?
On that first one, you'll probably find a lot of "Hell yeah!'s. What about the second? Or the third?
I'm sure you could poll plenty of forums and do grass roots surveys to find tens of thousands of people who will say yes to the first one. But once you get more detailed, more granular... well, that's the task ahead of you. Yes, you. You and anyone else that feels the dev are blind to some hidden, unserved niche.
This mystery, disenfranchised segment isn't playing the old school games, and they don't seem to be on the forums anywhere. You've got your work cut out for you. When CoH closed down, there was evidence of thousands, even tens of thousands, of CoH fans - people that wanted that specific game and that specific feature set. Have you ever seen more than a couple dozen rally behind any one old school feature set? Again, if so, show the devs your numbers, because they don't have the info that you do.
My logic is perfectly sound. Show them the data and they'll listen. A completely untapped, profitable segment of any market is a goldmine waiting to happen.
Old school MMOs were totally addictive, they didnt call it evercrack for nothing but I feel it was addictive to me because it was something new when I first played them. I've never played anything like that before so everything was exciting and fun. Now that the newness has worn off, I don't see them the same way anymore. It's become just like any genre prior to it, i've seen enough and it's time to move on to another newness to get that excitement back.
I have to say though, older games had great ideas regarding classes. They were all unique, none of this balance crap where all tanks are the same, dds are all the same, they actually had crowd control as classes, etc etc. Tha'ts what I really miss in older games, every class was so unique none of them played the same. I believe that's what we need to get back to, not this balance everything crap. I find balancing boring. Every class should have it's good and it's deficiencies, what makes up for those deficiencies is when you put all those classes in a group environment.
Originally posted by salaciouscrumbs Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by AlBQuirkyOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by Icewhite Find a way to demonstrate a larger market share than "50 old me-too grumblers that can be found frequenting this site". Find a way to demonstrate possible acceptance for something other than games we've already had.Genuinely new ideas.
There really just needs to be enough interest to support the game being written. Perpetuum is running on less than 5,000 people, and I think Mortal Online is the same way, though Perpetuum runs a lot better than Mortal Online. It is certainly possible to write a game, even an MMORPG, for a small number of people, and do it in such a way that those people enjoy the game. I think the problem with the views on this site is the idea that there is a group of people number in the tens or hundreds of thousands that is also so hidden that it doesn't register on any developer's radar is ludicrous. So is the idea that there are investors willing to invest the millions of dollars it would take to write a game for a target audience of tens or hundreds of thousands of people. I agree that this has some truth. And that is the hard part, coming up with factual numbers in print.If there was an old-time MMORPG that enough players "agreed with" for the design and features, numbers could be presented. I really do not see this scenario ever happening What messes up number comparisons is that no one knows why players leave or stay with any MMO. Did EQ's numbers start falling because players went to WoW, or because they introduced WoW elements into EQ? Probably a bit of both, maybe even more to one side than the other.Why did old MMOROG's populations start to drop? Did players get busy IRL? Did they find a better MMO? Did they get bored? There are many reasons why they may have stopped playing.And the final kicker, how many old-time MMORPG players play new MMOs just to be in an MMO, therefor adding to the new MMO numbers, but not really finding the game they desire to play? Speaking only for myself, I have a lot of F2P new MMO accounts scattered about the the MMO industry. Even though I am not playing them, the accounts are there and being counted. I am one of 30 million players Wizard101 claims, even though I have not logged in about 2 years. MMO companies are not very open with their player numbers, especially F2P games with no monthly sub income to look at in financial reports.While what you two are saying is true to some extent, it cannot be held up as "written in stone" as many like to make it out. There are too many assumptions for my taste to blindly the numbers (almost any numbers) presented.If MMO publishers used numbers solely, they would have never worked on mass producing light bulbs, quite simply because, nobody bought them until they were made. I don't think hamburger ice cream would be good. Who knows, maybe there are millions of people out there wanting that specific item?My point being, if publishers do not try the market, how can they be sure there is no market? Publishers have tried the market. They started the market. They know more about the market than anyone in these forums. When an "old school" style game funds itself, or gets funded through crowd funding, then there will be proof that the market exists. Star Citizen shows that there's a market for whatever kind of game SC is and that crowd funding is a way to tap into their market. To the best of my knowledge, other than tech demos, no "old school" style game has actually gotten funded. Certainly not an MMORPG. When is this market going to decloak and show itself? When are they going to crowd fund an "old school" game instead of barely funding a tech demo of an "old school" style game? Where is the "old school" MMORPG website or video game site? Where are the thousands of registered users on that website? If the market was there, if those people existed in large numbers, and those people were aware of the internet, there would be a Facebook group, Twitter feed, Tumblr feed, Blog with many followers or an entire website dedicated to it. There would be something. Where is it? Ten people on an MMORPG forum to not a market make.
Crowd-funding is a brand new phenom. It's literally less than 2 years old . . . Just this week the spiritual sequel to Myst & Riven started it's crowd-funding campaign on Kickstarter and is going to be successful.
We have no idea what's going to happen. The only MMO that's been tried on Kickstarter was a rousing success and is currently in production. See Camelot Unchained.
There's plenty of room for more old-school MMO's to give it a try. And they probably will. Don't get your panties in a bunch because it hasn't happened instantly, give it a little more time.
This is what I would call a good start. There is at least evidence that a game similar to DAoC, with an experienced developer has a market with enough money in it to get $2M in crowd funding and the developer is able to put up a couple million in their own money. This game seems likely to at least get made. It is certainly an indicator that it's possible to float a game that is reminiscent of an "old school" game.
That doesn't mean an "old school" market exists. Those people who are stoked for a DAoC revamp, all 14,873 of them aren't necessarily looking for a renaissance of "old school" games, just a revamp of DAoC.
I wanted to respond to this post in particular because it contains 100% more information than the vast majority of posts in support of the "old school" market idea. It pretty much trumps all those other posts, and I would love to see more posts like this, instead of posts talking about localized, personal experience. This is not sarcasm. A factual response in support of an idea is a good thing, whether I agree with the response or not.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I have been thinking the exact same thing. To me it's the content locusts who have ZERO patience and know nothing about the satisfaction one gets from earning things (gear, lvl, etc.). People who take time to smell the roses appreciate everything they earn so much more.
The hyper-casuals run from start to finish as fast as they can and don't even appreciate all a MMORPG has to offer. My first toon took me like 4 or 5 months to level, and I love every minute of it and felt oh so accomplished when I finally made it to max lvl. I miss those days so much, and I miss the world full of people, hangin out in chat, making friends running a dungeon in a group for the first time... sheer joy!
Unfortunately, the casuals also have the loudest voice and that, it seems, it what the developers listen to... the loudest voice.
Serious Gamers Unite!
How does a hyper casual, rush to the end. By definition "casual" doesn't really rush to anything. It sounds like you're really hung up on the word casual but from what you're saying.....you are one.
Developers listen to money....nothing else.
Because hyper-casuals steer clear of any challenges, try once, maybe twice, then fail and cry that it's too hard. They want everything handed to them without putting in the work, otherwise it's "Boo Hoo... This game sux" or the like. That's how. Arguing the term "Hyper-Casuals" is pure semantics at this point.
You know full well what I mean. "Content Locusts" Same difference. They don't care about depth. They should stick to shallow twitch games.
Comments
No, they aren't. They are different from one another as all preferences are. But the variation in preferences among sandbox fans or "oldschool" fans isn't greater than the variation between any one of them and the "norm" aka themepark quest hub games.
Thanks for the props and I hope everyone here does check out those links. Especially the Chris Roberts one, which really sums up the truth regarding PC-Gaming in the last 15 years.
I agree with you that it's also up the players to let the developers know that they want a game. But I am very aggressive in pointing out that in the defense of developers, many of them already know what games are wanted. These guys read the forums - they are part of the community. They love making these games - they're passionate about it. The developers are not even remotely like the publishers. Many developers would make games even if they only broke even on cost, simply because they're artists expressing their talent. They just can't do it, because nothing is free in the world. But that's changing now with crowd-funding.
I just want to be clear on that point. We should embrace helping developers, not accusing them. Developers are victims, just like the gamers, of the greedy and moronic publishers that are totally out the loop. If we really want a game made, the best thing to do is create a website and start a community and a petition to show our interest in a particular game. Even reach out via mail and phone calls to developers - letting them know that we'd support a Kickstarter campain.
This is not true. How do we know the minds of Developers? They are beholden to the Publishers - they have no choice in the decision of whether or not to make a game.
Click those links and listen to the stories that MAJOR industry developers tell about their experiences with publishers. They talk about how there is a huge demand for certain games, but they still get denied funding because it's not "Angry Birds". This is really what's been happening for 10 years. But now things are changing with crowd-funding. If we just roll over and give up now we'd be foolish - this is the best opportunity that we've had to see what we want made in 15 years. We should take advantage of it.
I meant it's not well received by people on this site. I totally agree that voicing your opinion here and anywhere else contributes at least in some small way to letting developers et al know that we exist.
Oops. Heh, misunderstood you and sounds like we're in agreement.
It's not exactly well received when we make our preferences known and clear.
Doesn't help that those preferences are as different from one another as they are from the norm. Who is "we?" To say that mmorpg players are divided in their opinions is a massively multi-layer online understatement.No, they aren't. They are different from one another as all preferences are. But the variation in preferences among sandbox fans or "oldschool" fans isn't greater than the variation between any one of them and the "norm" aka themepark quest hub games.
Matter of perspective I guess. I think they are where it counts.http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/PerfArt
When curiosity outweighs reason
I think the problem with the views on this site is the idea that there is a group of people number in the tens or hundreds of thousands that is also so hidden that it doesn't register on any developer's radar is ludicrous. So is the idea that there are investors willing to invest the millions of dollars it would take to write a game for a target audience of tens or hundreds of thousands of people.
I agree that this has some truth. And that is the hard part, coming up with factual numbers in print.
If there was an old-time MMORPG that enough players "agreed with" for the design and features, numbers could be presented. I really do not see this scenario ever happening
What messes up number comparisons is that no one knows why players leave or stay with any MMO. Did EQ's numbers start falling because players went to WoW, or because they introduced WoW elements into EQ? Probably a bit of both, maybe even more to one side than the other.
Why did old MMOROG's populations start to drop? Did players get busy IRL? Did they find a better MMO? Did they get bored? There are many reasons why they may have stopped playing.
And the final kicker, how many old-time MMORPG players play new MMOs just to be in an MMO, therefor adding to the new MMO numbers, but not really finding the game they desire to play? Speaking only for myself, I have a lot of F2P new MMO accounts scattered about the the MMO industry. Even though I am not playing them, the accounts are there and being counted. I am one of 30 million players Wizard101 claims, even though I have not logged in about 2 years. MMO companies are not very open with their player numbers, especially F2P games with no monthly sub income to look at in financial reports.
While what you two are saying is true to some extent, it cannot be held up as "written in stone" as many like to make it out. There are too many assumptions for my taste to blindly the numbers (almost any numbers) presented.
If MMO publishers used numbers solely, they would have never worked on mass producing light bulbs, quite simply because, nobody bought them until they were made. I don't think hamburger ice cream would be good. Who knows, maybe there are millions of people out there wanting that specific item?
My point being, if publishers do not try the market, how can they be sure there is no market?
Publishers have tried the market. They started the market. They know more about the market than anyone in these forums.
When an "old school" style game funds itself, or gets funded through crowd funding, then there will be proof that the market exists. Star Citizen shows that there's a market for whatever kind of game SC is and that crowd funding is a way to tap into their market. To the best of my knowledge, other than tech demos, no "old school" style game has actually gotten funded. Certainly not an MMORPG.
When is this market going to decloak and show itself? When are they going to crowd fund an "old school" game instead of barely funding a tech demo of an "old school" style game? Where is the "old school" MMORPG website or video game site? Where are the thousands of registered users on that website? If the market was there, if those people existed in large numbers, and those people were aware of the internet, there would be a Facebook group, Twitter feed, Tumblr feed, Blog with many followers or an entire website dedicated to it. There would be something. Where is it? Ten people on an MMORPG forum to not a market make.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I'm sorry I must have missed where anyone said or even implied in any way at all that was the only indication or even the main indication.
Lizardbones just said that crowdfunding was one of the many.
Can you point where this was indicated?
Well then I must have missed where he said it was one of many.
EDIT: If you're looking for a quote: "When an "old school" style game funds itself, or gets funded through crowd funding, then there will be proof that the market exists."
Crowd-funding is a brand new phenom. It's literally less than 2 years old . . . Just this week the spiritual sequel to Myst & Riven started it's crowd-funding campaign on Kickstarter and is going to be successful.
We have no idea what's going to happen. The only MMO that's been tried on Kickstarter was a rousing success and is currently in production. See Camelot Unchained.
There's plenty of room for more old-school MMO's to give it a try. And they probably will. Don't get your panties in a bunch because it hasn't happened instantly, give it a little more time.
That would be proof however that statement does not state or imply that is the only proof. As for other things he said:
Self-funds
Old-school MMO website
video game site
thousands of registered uses on that website
facebook group
twitter feed
tumblr feed
blog with many followers
website dedicated to it
Those were all things he said that would/could be considered evidence or proof that the market exists. So including crowd-funding that is 10 different ways he stated. That qualifies as many.
When it comes to devs outside of the studio environment they already seem to be appearing in kickstarter so you could try there. But like this guy said only money talks.
Yes, it does imply that. Him spouting off things that would be happening if the market existed doesn't mean that if any of those things existed it would prove that the market exists. The quote I provided absolutely implies that crowd funding is the only way to prove that the market exists.
Example:
"Honey, once you start going to your AA meetings consistently, then that'll prove you're a changed man."
"Well... what if I just completely quit drinking on my own? I'd still be a changed man."
I have been thinking the exact same thing. To me it's the content locusts who have ZERO patience and know nothing about the satisfaction one gets from earning things (gear, lvl, etc.). People who take time to smell the roses appreciate everything they earn so much more.
The hyper-casuals run from start to finish as fast as they can and don't even appreciate all a MMORPG has to offer. My first toon took me like 4 or 5 months to level, and I love every minute of it and felt oh so accomplished when I finally made it to max lvl. I miss those days so much, and I miss the world full of people, hangin out in chat, making friends running a dungeon in a group for the first time... sheer joy!
Unfortunately, the casuals also have the loudest voice and that, it seems, it what the developers listen to... the loudest voice.
Serious Gamers Unite!
How does a hyper casual, rush to the end. By definition "casual" doesn't really rush to anything. It sounds like you're really hung up on the word casual but from what you're saying.....you are one.
Developers listen to money....nothing else.
(sorry... couldn't resist
)
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Nope. Stating one example of many that he stated does not imply that the one example is the only one. In fact since it was just just one of many, it can be factually stated that it is only one of many ways to prove the scenario. If it was the only way, he would have stated only one example. He listed 10 examples, so there can be no implication it was the only one. I mean he listed 10, therefore it doesn't make any sense to imply that he thought there is only one. He listed 10.
And yes if any of those things existed it would prove that the market exists. Those are not the only proof, and once again he did not imply that. He just gave examples of some proof.
So far there is really no proof that a large market exists.
In your example, the first person doesn't state that is the only way. The only way to know if they believe that is the only way is to see their response. If they say no, or give another way (and lizard gave 9 other ways) then we know they do not believe there is only one way.
I don't know how you can honestly believe that he implied there is only one way to proove it, when he stated 10 different ways.
You sir, know what you're talking about.
Old school MMOs were totally addictive, they didnt call it evercrack for nothing but I feel it was addictive to me because it was something new when I first played them. I've never played anything like that before so everything was exciting and fun. Now that the newness has worn off, I don't see them the same way anymore. It's become just like any genre prior to it, i've seen enough and it's time to move on to another newness to get that excitement back.
I have to say though, older games had great ideas regarding classes. They were all unique, none of this balance crap where all tanks are the same, dds are all the same, they actually had crowd control as classes, etc etc. Tha'ts what I really miss in older games, every class was so unique none of them played the same. I believe that's what we need to get back to, not this balance everything crap. I find balancing boring. Every class should have it's good and it's deficiencies, what makes up for those deficiencies is when you put all those classes in a group environment.
I agree that this has some truth. And that is the hard part, coming up with factual numbers in print. If there was an old-time MMORPG that enough players "agreed with" for the design and features, numbers could be presented. I really do not see this scenario ever happening
Publishers have tried the market. They started the market. They know more about the market than anyone in these forums. When an "old school" style game funds itself, or gets funded through crowd funding, then there will be proof that the market exists. Star Citizen shows that there's a market for whatever kind of game SC is and that crowd funding is a way to tap into their market. To the best of my knowledge, other than tech demos, no "old school" style game has actually gotten funded. Certainly not an MMORPG. When is this market going to decloak and show itself? When are they going to crowd fund an "old school" game instead of barely funding a tech demo of an "old school" style game? Where is the "old school" MMORPG website or video game site? Where are the thousands of registered users on that website? If the market was there, if those people existed in large numbers, and those people were aware of the internet, there would be a Facebook group, Twitter feed, Tumblr feed, Blog with many followers or an entire website dedicated to it. There would be something. Where is it? Ten people on an MMORPG forum to not a market make.
Crowd-funding is a brand new phenom. It's literally less than 2 years old . . . Just this week the spiritual sequel to Myst & Riven started it's crowd-funding campaign on Kickstarter and is going to be successful.
We have no idea what's going to happen. The only MMO that's been tried on Kickstarter was a rousing success and is currently in production. See Camelot Unchained.
There's plenty of room for more old-school MMO's to give it a try. And they probably will. Don't get your panties in a bunch because it hasn't happened instantly, give it a little more time.
This is what I would call a good start. There is at least evidence that a game similar to DAoC, with an experienced developer has a market with enough money in it to get $2M in crowd funding and the developer is able to put up a couple million in their own money. This game seems likely to at least get made. It is certainly an indicator that it's possible to float a game that is reminiscent of an "old school" game.
That doesn't mean an "old school" market exists. Those people who are stoked for a DAoC revamp, all 14,873 of them aren't necessarily looking for a renaissance of "old school" games, just a revamp of DAoC.
I wanted to respond to this post in particular because it contains 100% more information than the vast majority of posts in support of the "old school" market idea. It pretty much trumps all those other posts, and I would love to see more posts like this, instead of posts talking about localized, personal experience. This is not sarcasm. A factual response in support of an idea is a good thing, whether I agree with the response or not.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Because hyper-casuals steer clear of any challenges, try once, maybe twice, then fail and cry that it's too hard. They want everything handed to them without putting in the work, otherwise it's "Boo Hoo... This game sux" or the like. That's how. Arguing the term "Hyper-Casuals" is pure semantics at this point.
You know full well what I mean. "Content Locusts" Same difference. They don't care about depth. They should stick to shallow twitch games.
Laters.
(sorry... couldn't resist
)
:-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.