But I think we all know you're about to put whatever spin you need to on that info to keep your opinion the way it is.
Well if MMORPG.com member count is allowed to be proof that support for old school games is growing since that is what is more preferred by the forum users and polls, then I guess you link can be allowed as proof that mmos are growing is the US .
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Sadly the whole industry is just one big marketing ploy,they don't really listen other than their core inside group and possibly large media groups.
When there are 1 on 1 sits downs,the questions are foreclosed and designed to just hype and market the product.When there is a q/a in forums it is always the simple stuff that gets asked/answered leaving no real indication that anything was accomplished.
The ONLY way is to let them know that you will not support their projects unless they are improved.
I do not believe in asking for what I WANT,that selfish,i simply want to see a really good effort,something that does not look like it was designed to be super cost effective to make larger profits.I guess i am a lot like other avid gamer's ,i simply want to see a game that looks like the developer has a lot of passion for their own game,i don't want to see assembly line game development.
OLD SCHOOL is not what i am after,i want to see lots of different game designs and be able to enjoy a lot of different QUALITY games.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I'm not sure I want to get into another technical discussion with you as it seems it always ends up in you just leaving without a concession.
Buuuuut I'm stubborn so I'm going to. He never said those other things would prove that there is a market for them. He said if there were a market, those things would be apparent. There's a difference. He's saying if there were a large market there would be a facebook group for it. That's different from saying if there were a facebook group, that would mean there's a large market. Any one of those things existing wouldn't prove that the market exists. Clearly his emphasis was on the crowd funding or self-funding thing. And quite frankly, I don't agree to those terms. I don't agree that the market hasn't revealed itself until an entire game has been crowd funded.
No. He didn't. He is saying if there was a large market there would be some evidence. Evidence could be (but is not limited to) any of the 10 ways he stated. There was no emphasis on one or the other, rather it was that something would exist and he gave several different ways that it could happen.
He is not saying, "if there was a large market there would be a facebook group". He is saying if there was a large market there would be some group somewhere, it could be crowd funding, facebook, twitter, some website... something somewhere.
He did not limit it to one thing, but stated 10 different things, implying that there are many ways there could be evidence for it.
He never said the only evidence was a self-funded game that was only 1 of 10 possible evidences that could be used.
Any one of those thigns might not prove it exists but it would give evidence of it's existence.
Well the success of dota2 and similar mobas has nothing to do with mmo's.
If mmos were doing good, they would be growing. Prove they are growing. Go on. Where is the massive multiplayer growth?
What are you talking about?
Who is talking about dota2? or other moba's?
We're talking about the evidence, or lack of it, of a large group of people who want old-school mmo's.
Whatever you are talking about has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
No mater what is presented as evidence for old school games, it will never be enough.
The current mmo group just gets bigger to make whatever evidence presented smaller. So dota2 and all mobas now are mmos and the growing demand for other types of mmos seems just as small as ever even though its growing.
Do you see?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
But I think we all know you're about to put whatever spin you need to on that info to keep your opinion the way it is.
I posted two links to Newzoo which he ignored as well. Here's one with an infographic: http://www.newzoo.com/infographics/global-games-market-report-infographics/ which he ignored as well. It's obvious that the industry is growing. In that graphic some segments are shrinking their share (PC, handheld, and social), but MMOs, mobile and consoles are growing. The only thing growing faster than MMOs is mobile.
The industry, including mmos, has increased revenue by over $4Bn. By the end of 2016 the revenue increase is projected to by $20Bn more than 2012.
His retort was: that's because there are more games now, not that there is growth.
What about mmorpgs in the US. Up or down? Im sure your link provides the info. Let's start there and continue once that is established.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
It's simple.. MMO gaming today is all about maximizing the bottom line.. If you are an investor, you want to get the most bang for your buck.. So in that case, it's no wonder why they keep trying to make another WoW ( McDonalds ) and ignore making a 4 star game with a smaller market.. So until we find a company willing to be a Peter Luger, or Jaguar satisfied with a niche market, we'll continue to get the same ole, same ole..
Originally posted by Rydeson It's simple.. MMO gaming today is all about maximizing the bottom line.. If you are an investor, you want to get the most bang for your buck.. So in that case, it's no wonder why they keep trying to make another WoW ( McDonalds ) and ignore making a 4 star game with a smaller market.. So until we find a company willing to be a Peter Luger, or Jaguar satisfied with a niche market, we'll continue to get the same ole, same ole..
Na we'll just play other games and purchase entertainment that does cater to us, or is closer. It's too easy to not play, there is nothing unique about mmorpgs any longer. So the entire experience can be found in other places.
Everyone is playing MOBAs now anyway.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Sadly the whole industry is just one big marketing ploy,they don't really listen other than their core inside group and possibly large media groups.
When there are 1 on 1 sits downs,the questions are foreclosed and designed to just hype and market the product.When there is a q/a in forums it is always the simple stuff that gets asked/answered leaving no real indication that anything was accomplished.
The ONLY way is to let them know that you will not support their projects unless they are improved.
I do not believe in asking for what I WANT,that selfish,i simply want to see a really good effort,something that does not look like it was designed to be super cost effective to make larger profits.I guess i am a lot like other avid gamer's ,i simply want to see a game that looks like the developer has a lot of passion for their own game,i don't want to see assembly line game development.
OLD SCHOOL is not what i am after,i want to see lots of different game designs and be able to enjoy a lot of different QUALITY games.
Old school was closer, and it's probably more likely than a new experience. They're still messing around with public quest from warhammer. c'mon.
They milk it nice and slow. The same old experience doesn't change with a new twist.
There is no vision, just a feature set determined by its perceived ROI .
There are games that offer all kinds of different gameplay. Just not from the usual suspects.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Were talking MMORPGs not MMOs which include FPS or even MOBA which are not even persistent online games. A stripped down RTS game is not an MMO anymore than an regular RTS is an MMO or Battlefield/Call of Duty. If online matches and progression of your account through unlocks is an MMO almost every online game is now an MMO.
I know someone is going to say there is no definition of MMO but hell I do say there is an understanding that separated MMOs from regular games. A persistent shared online world hosted on a server is what defined MMOs. The category MMORPG or MMOFPS defined by the last words.
I think its hard to say there is no market for other non themepark quest hub games. How do you even get readings from a genre that in large part was brought in by WoW on games they haven't experienced or even thought of? And the previous market that bought those older games are still there and they're not vastly being out performed by current games in a bigger market.
Originally posted by Torvaldr Originally posted by DamonVileOriginally posted by FinalFikusWell the success of dota2 and similar mobas has nothing to do with mmo's.
If mmos were doing good, they would be growing. Prove they are growing. Go on. Where is the massive multiplayer growth?http://info.globalcollect.com/Portals/141744/docs/GlobalCollect_Global_MMO_Games_Market_report_03.pdfBut I think we all know you're about to put whatever spin you need to on that info to keep your opinion the way it is.I posted two links to Newzoo which he ignored as well. Here's one with an infographic: http://www.newzoo.com/infographics/global-games-market-report-infographics/ which he ignored as well. It's obvious that the industry is growing. In that graphic some segments are shrinking their share (PC, handheld, and social), but MMOs, mobile and consoles are growing. The only thing growing faster than MMOs is mobile.
The industry, including mmos, has increased revenue by over $4Bn. By the end of 2016 the revenue increase is projected to by $20Bn more than 2012.
His retort was: that's because there are more games now, not that there is growth.
I can preemptively respond to your preemptive assessment of his response! More games is growth!
The only issue with stuff like what's linked above is that it's for public consumption. A lot of it is pretty undefined, and the things that are defined cover a very wide range of things. MMOs includes many things that people here don't even want to discuss, much less include in a discussion on MMORPGs. The second link is a world wide report. I mean, it's still growth if MMOs are spreading into Mexico and India, but do most American gamers really care about games spreading around the world? Not really, they care about how well the games are doing in their neck of the woods.
I really like these infographics, but I'm not sure how useful they are for us in determining much of anything.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by FinalFikus Minecraft is taking over our youth.MMOrpgs removed similar features for being too complex.
I've been playing Minecraft for a couple years now. I have played on several public servers, and have run several private servers with friends. After a couple years of seeing how people react to having Minecraft's features, I would say that MMORPGs limited or dropped Minecraft like features, if they ever had them in the first place, because having Minecraft like features without some very strong controls in place always leads to a nonfunctional game world.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I'm not sure I want to get into another technical discussion with you as it seems it always ends up in you just leaving without a concession.
Buuuuut I'm stubborn so I'm going to. He never said those other things would prove that there is a market for them. He said if there were a market, those things would be apparent. There's a difference. He's saying if there were a large market there would be a facebook group for it. That's different from saying if there were a facebook group, that would mean there's a large market. Any one of those things existing wouldn't prove that the market exists. Clearly his emphasis was on the crowd funding or self-funding thing. And quite frankly, I don't agree to those terms. I don't agree that the market hasn't revealed itself until an entire game has been crowd funded.
No. He didn't. He is saying if there was a large market there would be some evidence. Evidence could be (but is not limited to) any of the 10 ways he stated. There was no emphasis on one or the other, rather it was that something would exist and he gave several different ways that it could happen.
He is not saying, "if there was a large market there would be a facebook group". He is saying if there was a large market there would be some group somewhere, it could be crowd funding, facebook, twitter, some website... something somewhere.
He did not limit it to one thing, but stated 10 different things, implying that there are many ways there could be evidence for it.
He never said the only evidence was a self-funded game that was only 1 of 10 possible evidences that could be used.
Any one of those thigns might not prove it exists but it would give evidence of it's existence.
edit - now the logical come back to this is the expression an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence which is true. It is also true that the larger a group is the more evidence there is of it. It is also true that typically evidence one way or the other is found whenever people go looking for it, and there are people looking for this. Devs/publishers are constantly looking at the market, gamers are looking at the market, researchers are looking at the market. Thus Occam's Razor applies. With all those people looking, if they can't find it, it likely is not large enough to be found.
On the other hand, maybe they have found it, and the next sandboxish games is in response to it.
Here's the difference, the last paragraph of things that he spouted off weren't the main point because he never said if one of these things exists, then the market exists. However, he did say that for crowd funding/self funding. Clearly that's where his emphasis was and the other "10" points weren't in the same category. Also, a lot of the things on the list were pretty meaningless. An oldschool game facebook page? Are there newschool game facebook pages?
And you doubled or trippled up on same points. For instance, your list includes these 4:
MMORPG website
Videogame website
Thousands of users on that website
website dedicated to it
Do you really take this to be an honest assessment of what he said?
Originally posted by FinalFikus Minecraft is taking over our youth.
MMOrpgs removed similar features for being too complex.
I've been playing Minecraft for a couple years now. I have played on several public servers, and have run several private servers with friends. After a couple years of seeing how people react to having Minecraft's features, I would say that MMORPGs limited or dropped Minecraft like features, if they ever had them in the first place, because having Minecraft like features without some very strong controls in place always leads to a nonfunctional game world.
But don't developers get paid to find solutions to these problems. Minecraft did.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Originally posted by FinalFikus Minecraft is taking over our youth.
MMOrpgs removed similar features for being too complex.
I've been playing Minecraft for a couple years now. I have played on several public servers, and have run several private servers with friends. After a couple years of seeing how people react to having Minecraft's features, I would say that MMORPGs limited or dropped Minecraft like features, if they ever had them in the first place, because having Minecraft like features without some very strong controls in place always leads to a nonfunctional game world.
But don't developers get paid to find solutions to these problems. Minecraft did.
Those solutions included shifting policing from dev to player, and reducing the world population to significantly smaller numbers. There are definitely a lot more options available to you when there is no money riding on the line, you can restrict access to only that handful of people that have your same interests, and you can kick/ban whoever you want without repercussion.
Minecraft is very much like NWN1. It's beauty is in its size and distribution - you can find a playerbase and feature set that fits your particular tastes. A developer simply can't manage a thousand different communities operating under an almost equal number of CoC's and gameplay rulesets.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by FinalFikus Minecraft is taking over our youth.
MMOrpgs removed similar features for being too complex.
I've been playing Minecraft for a couple years now. I have played on several public servers, and have run several private servers with friends. After a couple years of seeing how people react to having Minecraft's features, I would say that MMORPGs limited or dropped Minecraft like features, if they ever had them in the first place, because having Minecraft like features without some very strong controls in place always leads to a nonfunctional game world.
But don't developers get paid to find solutions to these problems. Minecraft did.
Those solutions included shifting policing from dev to player, and reducing the world population to significantly smaller numbers. There are definitely a lot more options available to you when there is no money riding on the line, you can restrict access to only that handful of people that have your same interests, and you can kick/ban whoever you want without repercussion.
Honestly, the sandbox genre in MMORPG's is largely untested in a lot of ways IMO. I seriously doubt a place with full destruction would ever work unless it was extremely time consuming and players had true retribution and accountablity. Easier said than done.
Originally posted by FinalFikus Minecraft is taking over our youth.
MMOrpgs removed similar features for being too complex.
I've been playing Minecraft for a couple years now. I have played on several public servers, and have run several private servers with friends. After a couple years of seeing how people react to having Minecraft's features, I would say that MMORPGs limited or dropped Minecraft like features, if they ever had them in the first place, because having Minecraft like features without some very strong controls in place always leads to a nonfunctional game world.
But don't developers get paid to find solutions to these problems. Minecraft did.
Those solutions included shifting policing from dev to player, and reducing the world population to significantly smaller numbers. There are definitely a lot more options available to you when there is no money riding on the line, you can restrict access to only that handful of people that have your same interests, and you can kick/ban whoever you want without repercussion.
Honestly, the sandbox genre in MMORPG's is largely untested in a lot of ways IMO. I seriously doubt a place with full destruction would ever work unless it was extremely time consuming and players had true retribution and accountablity. Easier said than done.
One way to deal with it would be territory control mechanics. The ability to shape the world would be limited to whoever owns a nearby castle or village or whatever. That would stop individual griefers by requiring you to siege and conquer an area in order to shape it.
Originally posted by FinalFikus Minecraft is taking over our youth.
MMOrpgs removed similar features for being too complex.
I've been playing Minecraft for a couple years now. I have played on several public servers, and have run several private servers with friends. After a couple years of seeing how people react to having Minecraft's features, I would say that MMORPGs limited or dropped Minecraft like features, if they ever had them in the first place, because having Minecraft like features without some very strong controls in place always leads to a nonfunctional game world.
But don't developers get paid to find solutions to these problems. Minecraft did.
Those solutions included shifting policing from dev to player, and reducing the world population to significantly smaller numbers. There are definitely a lot more options available to you when there is no money riding on the line, you can restrict access to only that handful of people that have your same interests, and you can kick/ban whoever you want without repercussion.
Honestly, the sandbox genre in MMORPG's is largely untested in a lot of ways IMO. I seriously doubt a place with full destruction would ever work unless it was extremely time consuming and players had true retribution and accountablity. Easier said than done.
Again, don't developers get paid to find these solutions. If you can't find a way to ensure the feature's full experience reaches you customer, isn't that the developers fault.
Shouldn't they be paying people t figure it out instead of making excuses. I realize i'm being a little unrealistic, but excuses don't matter to customers in the end. They just want to experience their creation.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by VengeSunsoarOriginally posted by Holophonist
I'm not sure I want to get into another technical discussion with you as it seems it always ends up in you just leaving without a concession.Buuuuut I'm stubborn so I'm going to. He never said those other things would prove that there is a market for them. He said if there were a market, those things would be apparent. There's a difference. He's saying if there were a large market there would be a facebook group for it. That's different from saying if there were a facebook group, that would mean there's a large market. Any one of those things existing wouldn't prove that the market exists. Clearly his emphasis was on the crowd funding or self-funding thing. And quite frankly, I don't agree to those terms. I don't agree that the market hasn't revealed itself until an entire game has been crowd funded. No. He didn't. He is saying if there was a large market there would be some evidence. Evidence could be (but is not limited to) any of the 10 ways he stated. There was no emphasis on one or the other, rather it was that something would exist and he gave several different ways that it could happen. He is not saying, "if there was a large market there would be a facebook group". He is saying if there was a large market there would be some group somewhere, it could be crowd funding, facebook, twitter, some website... something somewhere.He did not limit it to one thing, but stated 10 different things, implying that there are many ways there could be evidence for it.He never said the only evidence was a self-funded game that was only 1 of 10 possible evidences that could be used.Any one of those thigns might not prove it exists but it would give evidence of it's existence.edit - now the logical come back to this is the expression an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence which is true. It is also true that the larger a group is the more evidence there is of it. It is also true that typically evidence one way or the other is found whenever people go looking for it, and there are people looking for this. Devs/publishers are constantly looking at the market, gamers are looking at the market, researchers are looking at the market. Thus Occam's Razor applies. With all those people looking, if they can't find it, it likely is not large enough to be found. On the other hand, maybe they have found it, and the next sandboxish games is in response to it.Here's the difference, the last paragraph of things that he spouted off weren't the main point because he never said if one of these things exists, then the market exists. However, he did say that for crowd funding/self funding. Clearly that's where his emphasis was and the other "10" points weren't in the same category. Also, a lot of the things on the list were pretty meaningless. An oldschool game facebook page? Are there newschool game facebook pages?
And you doubled or trippled up on same points. For instance, your list includes these 4:
MMORPG website
Videogame website
Thousands of users on that website
website dedicated to it
Do you really take this to be an honest assessment of what he said?
Good grief. This is what I said, in fewer words.
If there exists a large 'old school' market for MMORPGs, then the people who make up that market would do things, most likely social things on the internet, that would be noticeable in some way. Once noticed and identified, those things could be quantified in some way.
I listed some examples, such as creating an internet forum dedicated to 'old school' MMORPGs, or starting a Facebook page dedicated to 'old school' MMORPGs. The point is that those people would not be invisible, because they would be people, they would be familiar with technology and they would be familiar with the internet. They would be in search of or aficionados of a product that they would want to exist. So they would talk about it with other people who are interested in the same thing. That's the proof, above and beyond any crowd funded projects. Compare this activity to activity of people who are interested in MMORPGs in general, or who are interested in a specific MMORPG as opposed to 'old school' MMORPGs. That would be some market research that developers would listen to.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by FinalFikus Minecraft is taking over our youth.
MMOrpgs removed similar features for being too complex.
I've been playing Minecraft for a couple years now. I have played on several public servers, and have run several private servers with friends. After a couple years of seeing how people react to having Minecraft's features, I would say that MMORPGs limited or dropped Minecraft like features, if they ever had them in the first place, because having Minecraft like features without some very strong controls in place always leads to a nonfunctional game world.
But don't developers get paid to find solutions to these problems. Minecraft did.
Those solutions included shifting policing from dev to player, and reducing the world population to significantly smaller numbers. There are definitely a lot more options available to you when there is no money riding on the line, you can restrict access to only that handful of people that have your same interests, and you can kick/ban whoever you want without repercussion.
Ya. And he reaped the rewards. His job wasn't to determine if it could be done. It was to ensure the experience stayed true while making it accessible to the most people and make money.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I'm not sure I want to get into another technical discussion with you as it seems it always ends up in you just leaving without a concession.Buuuuut I'm stubborn so I'm going to. He never said those other things would prove that there is a market for them. He said if there were a market, those things would be apparent. There's a difference. He's saying if there were a large market there would be a facebook group for it. That's different from saying if there were a facebook group, that would mean there's a large market. Any one of those things existing wouldn't prove that the market exists. Clearly his emphasis was on the crowd funding or self-funding thing. And quite frankly, I don't agree to those terms. I don't agree that the market hasn't revealed itself until an entire game has been crowd funded.
No. He didn't. He is saying if there was a large market there would be some evidence. Evidence could be (but is not limited to) any of the 10 ways he stated. There was no emphasis on one or the other, rather it was that something would exist and he gave several different ways that it could happen. He is not saying, "if there was a large market there would be a facebook group". He is saying if there was a large market there would be some group somewhere, it could be crowd funding, facebook, twitter, some website... something somewhere.He did not limit it to one thing, but stated 10 different things, implying that there are many ways there could be evidence for it.He never said the only evidence was a self-funded game that was only 1 of 10 possible evidences that could be used.Any one of those thigns might not prove it exists but it would give evidence of it's existence.edit - now the logical come back to this is the expression an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence which is true. It is also true that the larger a group is the more evidence there is of it. It is also true that typically evidence one way or the other is found whenever people go looking for it, and there are people looking for this. Devs/publishers are constantly looking at the market, gamers are looking at the market, researchers are looking at the market. Thus Occam's Razor applies. With all those people looking, if they can't find it, it likely is not large enough to be found. On the other hand, maybe they have found it, and the next sandboxish games is in response to it.
Here's the difference, the last paragraph of things that he spouted off weren't the main point because he never said if one of these things exists, then the market exists. However, he did say that for crowd funding/self funding. Clearly that's where his emphasis was and the other "10" points weren't in the same category. Also, a lot of the things on the list were pretty meaningless. An oldschool game facebook page? Are there newschool game facebook pages?
And you doubled or trippled up on same points. For instance, your list includes these 4:
MMORPG website
Videogame website
Thousands of users on that website
website dedicated to it
Do you really take this to be an honest assessment of what he said?
Good grief. This is what I said, in fewer words.
If there exists a large 'old school' market for MMORPGs, then the people who make up that market would do things, most likely social things on the internet, that would be noticeable in some way. Once noticed and identified, those things could be quantified in some way.
I listed some examples, such as creating an internet forum dedicated to 'old school' MMORPGs, or starting a Facebook page dedicated to 'old school' MMORPGs. The point is that those people would not be invisible, because they would be people, they would be familiar with technology and they would be familiar with the internet. They would be in search of or aficionados of a product that they would want to exist. So they would talk about it with other people who are interested in the same thing. That's the proof, above and beyond any crowd funded projects. Compare this activity to activity of people who are interested in MMORPGs in general, or who are interested in a specific MMORPG as opposed to 'old school' MMORPGs. That would be some market research that developers would listen to.
Well now that you put it like this I think I disagree even more. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that if there were a large enough market of "oldschool" fans that they would manifest themselves in some explicit way. Before themeparks became huge I don't think there were websites or social media presence (I know it wasn't really around back then) about the desire for "newschool".
It seems like you're saying we all have to gather and commit to something before a developer will even decide to make a game. This isn't how it works. It's their job to pick up on what would be viable and what wouldn't. If we were to gather in one big area to show that we exist, that would be doing their work for them. I'm not saying I'm actively AGAINST doing something like that, but I just don't at all agree when you say this is what needs to happen before we start getting the games we want.
I'll say it again: EVE. That game fits the description of a game that a lot of us oldschool players want, it's just not in the right setting for some of us and some of us don't like the mechanics (space combat rather than a character). But EVE is a good example of a game that follows a lot of those principles and is successful.
Similarly, there are games already in production that are trying to cater to this obviously unserved market. What are you guys going to say when in a couple of years there are a number of available sandbox titles, a lot of them with "oldschool" features like harsh(er) death penalties and more of an emphasis on the community working together? It seems like you guys are just taking advantage of the current situation which doesn't have many of these types of games; but that can easily be explained by WoW's anomalous success.
Originally posted by FinalFikus Minecraft is taking over our youth.
MMOrpgs removed similar features for being too complex.
I've been playing Minecraft for a couple years now. I have played on several public servers, and have run several private servers with friends. After a couple years of seeing how people react to having Minecraft's features, I would say that MMORPGs limited or dropped Minecraft like features, if they ever had them in the first place, because having Minecraft like features without some very strong controls in place always leads to a nonfunctional game world.
But don't developers get paid to find solutions to these problems. Minecraft did.
Those solutions included shifting policing from dev to player, and reducing the world population to significantly smaller numbers. There are definitely a lot more options available to you when there is no money riding on the line, you can restrict access to only that handful of people that have your same interests, and you can kick/ban whoever you want without repercussion.
Ya. And he reaped the rewards. His job wasn't to determine if it could be done. It was to ensure the experience stayed true while making it accessible to the most people and make money.
But you are asking for something completely different. No one said a multiplayer world with a realm builder tool wasn't possible. NWN, Dungeon Seige, Minecraft, Planet Explorers... you can even add in NWO.
That's available now, so I'm not sure what you are asking for or why you are faulting MMO devs for not making multiplayer world builder kits.
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
Well now that you put it like this I think I disagree even more. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that if there were a large enough market of "oldschool" fans that they would manifest themselves in some explicit way.
Because that's how humans are wired. If a group exists, there's some data on them somewhere, if not one or more SIGs of some kind around the web where you can find them.
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
Well now that you put it like this I think I disagree even more. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that if there were a large enough market of "oldschool" fans that they would manifest themselves in some explicit way.
Because that's how humans are wired. If a group exists, there's some data on them somewhere, if not one or more SIGs of some kind around the web where you can find them.
If that were always the case you wouldn't have cases like WoW that surprise people. Also I specifically said some "explicit" way. I'm not sure why there has to be some gathering place in order for there to be a market to tap into.
Well now that you put it like this I think I disagree even more. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that if there were a large enough market of "oldschool" fans that they would manifest themselves in some explicit way.
Because that's how humans are wired. If a group exists, there's some data on them somewhere, if not one or more SIGs of some kind around the web where you can find them.
If that were always the case you wouldn't have cases like WoW that surprise people. Also I specifically said some "explicit" way. I'm not sure why there has to be some gathering place in order for there to be a market to tap into.
Well, online game devs somehow found most every other group outside of this particularly elusive and hard to quantify one. If they don't gather anywhere currently, especially when there are so many ways to do so for free, what makes a dev think they'd pay to convene somewhere?
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
Well now that you put it like this I think I disagree even more. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that if there were a large enough market of "oldschool" fans that they would manifest themselves in some explicit way.
Because that's how humans are wired. If a group exists, there's some data on them somewhere, if not one or more SIGs of some kind around the web where you can find them.
10 years later you go looking:) I bet some of the staff at mmorpg.com remembers a few groups. No evidence of any kind will ever be considered valid though. How's business here at mmorpg.com?
Besides, without a developer who shares that vision and believes in the experience it offers it would be a waste of time. When one of those appear, the old timers come out of the woodwork. Star citizen is how it works. Old school games were all different experiences. You can't collect features for us...that's what the newer games do.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Well now that you put it like this I think I disagree even more. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that if there were a large enough market of "oldschool" fans that they would manifest themselves in some explicit way.
Because that's how humans are wired. If a group exists, there's some data on them somewhere, if not one or more SIGs of some kind around the web where you can find them.
If that were always the case you wouldn't have cases like WoW that surprise people. Also I specifically said some "explicit" way. I'm not sure why there has to be some gathering place in order for there to be a market to tap into.
Well, online game devs somehow found most every other group outside of this particularly elusive and hard to quantify one. If they don't gather anywhere currently, especially when there are so many ways to do so for free, what makes a dev think they'd pay to convene somewhere?
What you mean to say is they found most every other group that they have found. If they haven't found a group that you don't know of, you wouldn't know they haven't found it.
Also as I've said many many times the much simpler answer is that WoW skewed the market towards a certain type of game which, in the context of the MMO genre, is almost the opposite of what we want. So for years they copied that type of game which, again, is basically the opposite of the type of game we want. That's why our games haven't been made, not because we simply don't exist as a market.
Comments
Well if MMORPG.com member count is allowed to be proof that support for old school games is growing since that is what is more preferred by the forum users and polls, then I guess you link can be allowed as proof that mmos are growing is the US .
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Sadly the whole industry is just one big marketing ploy,they don't really listen other than their core inside group and possibly large media groups.
When there are 1 on 1 sits downs,the questions are foreclosed and designed to just hype and market the product.When there is a q/a in forums it is always the simple stuff that gets asked/answered leaving no real indication that anything was accomplished.
The ONLY way is to let them know that you will not support their projects unless they are improved.
I do not believe in asking for what I WANT,that selfish,i simply want to see a really good effort,something that does not look like it was designed to be super cost effective to make larger profits.I guess i am a lot like other avid gamer's ,i simply want to see a game that looks like the developer has a lot of passion for their own game,i don't want to see assembly line game development.
OLD SCHOOL is not what i am after,i want to see lots of different game designs and be able to enjoy a lot of different QUALITY games.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
No mater what is presented as evidence for old school games, it will never be enough.
The current mmo group just gets bigger to make whatever evidence presented smaller. So dota2 and all mobas now are mmos and the growing demand for other types of mmos seems just as small as ever even though its growing.
Do you see?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
What about mmorpgs in the US. Up or down? Im sure your link provides the info. Let's start there and continue once that is established.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Na we'll just play other games and purchase entertainment that does cater to us, or is closer. It's too easy to not play, there is nothing unique about mmorpgs any longer. So the entire experience can be found in other places.
Everyone is playing MOBAs now anyway.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Old school was closer, and it's probably more likely than a new experience. They're still messing around with public quest from warhammer. c'mon.
They milk it nice and slow. The same old experience doesn't change with a new twist.
There is no vision, just a feature set determined by its perceived ROI .
There are games that offer all kinds of different gameplay. Just not from the usual suspects.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I know someone is going to say there is no definition of MMO but hell I do say there is an understanding that separated MMOs from regular games. A persistent shared online world hosted on a server is what defined MMOs. The category MMORPG or MMOFPS defined by the last words.
I think its hard to say there is no market for other non themepark quest hub games. How do you even get readings from a genre that in large part was brought in by WoW on games they haven't experienced or even thought of? And the previous market that bought those older games are still there and they're not vastly being out performed by current games in a bigger market.
http://info.globalcollect.com/Portals/141744/docs/GlobalCollect_Global_MMO_Games_Market_report_03.pdf But I think we all know you're about to put whatever spin you need to on that info to keep your opinion the way it is.
I posted two links to Newzoo which he ignored as well. Here's one with an infographic: http://www.newzoo.com/infographics/global-games-market-report-infographics/ which he ignored as well. It's obvious that the industry is growing. In that graphic some segments are shrinking their share (PC, handheld, and social), but MMOs, mobile and consoles are growing. The only thing growing faster than MMOs is mobile.
The industry, including mmos, has increased revenue by over $4Bn. By the end of 2016 the revenue increase is projected to by $20Bn more than 2012.
His retort was: that's because there are more games now, not that there is growth.
I can preemptively respond to your preemptive assessment of his response! More games is growth!
The only issue with stuff like what's linked above is that it's for public consumption. A lot of it is pretty undefined, and the things that are defined cover a very wide range of things. MMOs includes many things that people here don't even want to discuss, much less include in a discussion on MMORPGs. The second link is a world wide report. I mean, it's still growth if MMOs are spreading into Mexico and India, but do most American gamers really care about games spreading around the world? Not really, they care about how well the games are doing in their neck of the woods.
I really like these infographics, but I'm not sure how useful they are for us in determining much of anything.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I've been playing Minecraft for a couple years now. I have played on several public servers, and have run several private servers with friends. After a couple years of seeing how people react to having Minecraft's features, I would say that MMORPGs limited or dropped Minecraft like features, if they ever had them in the first place, because having Minecraft like features without some very strong controls in place always leads to a nonfunctional game world.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Here's the difference, the last paragraph of things that he spouted off weren't the main point because he never said if one of these things exists, then the market exists. However, he did say that for crowd funding/self funding. Clearly that's where his emphasis was and the other "10" points weren't in the same category. Also, a lot of the things on the list were pretty meaningless. An oldschool game facebook page? Are there newschool game facebook pages?
And you doubled or trippled up on same points. For instance, your list includes these 4:
MMORPG website
Videogame website
Thousands of users on that website
website dedicated to it
Do you really take this to be an honest assessment of what he said?
But don't developers get paid to find solutions to these problems. Minecraft did.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Those solutions included shifting policing from dev to player, and reducing the world population to significantly smaller numbers. There are definitely a lot more options available to you when there is no money riding on the line, you can restrict access to only that handful of people that have your same interests, and you can kick/ban whoever you want without repercussion.
Minecraft is very much like NWN1. It's beauty is in its size and distribution - you can find a playerbase and feature set that fits your particular tastes. A developer simply can't manage a thousand different communities operating under an almost equal number of CoC's and gameplay rulesets.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
Honestly, the sandbox genre in MMORPG's is largely untested in a lot of ways IMO. I seriously doubt a place with full destruction would ever work unless it was extremely time consuming and players had true retribution and accountablity. Easier said than done.
One way to deal with it would be territory control mechanics. The ability to shape the world would be limited to whoever owns a nearby castle or village or whatever. That would stop individual griefers by requiring you to siege and conquer an area in order to shape it.
Damn... MMOs could be so cool.....
Again, don't developers get paid to find these solutions. If you can't find a way to ensure the feature's full experience reaches you customer, isn't that the developers fault.
Shouldn't they be paying people t figure it out instead of making excuses. I realize i'm being a little unrealistic, but excuses don't matter to customers in the end. They just want to experience their creation.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
No. He didn't. He is saying if there was a large market there would be some evidence. Evidence could be (but is not limited to) any of the 10 ways he stated. There was no emphasis on one or the other, rather it was that something would exist and he gave several different ways that it could happen. He is not saying, "if there was a large market there would be a facebook group". He is saying if there was a large market there would be some group somewhere, it could be crowd funding, facebook, twitter, some website... something somewhere. He did not limit it to one thing, but stated 10 different things, implying that there are many ways there could be evidence for it. He never said the only evidence was a self-funded game that was only 1 of 10 possible evidences that could be used. Any one of those thigns might not prove it exists but it would give evidence of it's existence. edit - now the logical come back to this is the expression an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence which is true. It is also true that the larger a group is the more evidence there is of it. It is also true that typically evidence one way or the other is found whenever people go looking for it, and there are people looking for this. Devs/publishers are constantly looking at the market, gamers are looking at the market, researchers are looking at the market. Thus Occam's Razor applies. With all those people looking, if they can't find it, it likely is not large enough to be found. On the other hand, maybe they have found it, and the next sandboxish games is in response to it.
Here's the difference, the last paragraph of things that he spouted off weren't the main point because he never said if one of these things exists, then the market exists. However, he did say that for crowd funding/self funding. Clearly that's where his emphasis was and the other "10" points weren't in the same category. Also, a lot of the things on the list were pretty meaningless. An oldschool game facebook page? Are there newschool game facebook pages?
And you doubled or trippled up on same points. For instance, your list includes these 4:
MMORPG website
Videogame website
Thousands of users on that website
website dedicated to it
Do you really take this to be an honest assessment of what he said?
Good grief. This is what I said, in fewer words.
If there exists a large 'old school' market for MMORPGs, then the people who make up that market would do things, most likely social things on the internet, that would be noticeable in some way. Once noticed and identified, those things could be quantified in some way.
I listed some examples, such as creating an internet forum dedicated to 'old school' MMORPGs, or starting a Facebook page dedicated to 'old school' MMORPGs. The point is that those people would not be invisible, because they would be people, they would be familiar with technology and they would be familiar with the internet. They would be in search of or aficionados of a product that they would want to exist. So they would talk about it with other people who are interested in the same thing. That's the proof, above and beyond any crowd funded projects. Compare this activity to activity of people who are interested in MMORPGs in general, or who are interested in a specific MMORPG as opposed to 'old school' MMORPGs. That would be some market research that developers would listen to.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Ya. And he reaped the rewards. His job wasn't to determine if it could be done. It was to ensure the experience stayed true while making it accessible to the most people and make money.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Well now that you put it like this I think I disagree even more. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that if there were a large enough market of "oldschool" fans that they would manifest themselves in some explicit way. Before themeparks became huge I don't think there were websites or social media presence (I know it wasn't really around back then) about the desire for "newschool".
It seems like you're saying we all have to gather and commit to something before a developer will even decide to make a game. This isn't how it works. It's their job to pick up on what would be viable and what wouldn't. If we were to gather in one big area to show that we exist, that would be doing their work for them. I'm not saying I'm actively AGAINST doing something like that, but I just don't at all agree when you say this is what needs to happen before we start getting the games we want.
I'll say it again: EVE. That game fits the description of a game that a lot of us oldschool players want, it's just not in the right setting for some of us and some of us don't like the mechanics (space combat rather than a character). But EVE is a good example of a game that follows a lot of those principles and is successful.
Similarly, there are games already in production that are trying to cater to this obviously unserved market. What are you guys going to say when in a couple of years there are a number of available sandbox titles, a lot of them with "oldschool" features like harsh(er) death penalties and more of an emphasis on the community working together? It seems like you guys are just taking advantage of the current situation which doesn't have many of these types of games; but that can easily be explained by WoW's anomalous success.
But you are asking for something completely different. No one said a multiplayer world with a realm builder tool wasn't possible. NWN, Dungeon Seige, Minecraft, Planet Explorers... you can even add in NWO.
That's available now, so I'm not sure what you are asking for or why you are faulting MMO devs for not making multiplayer world builder kits.
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
Because that's how humans are wired. If a group exists, there's some data on them somewhere, if not one or more SIGs of some kind around the web where you can find them.
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 that were always the case you wouldn't have cases like WoW that surprise people. Also I specifically said some "explicit" way. I'm not sure why there has to be some gathering place in order for there to be a market to tap into.
Well, online game devs somehow found most every other group outside of this particularly elusive and hard to quantify one. If they don't gather anywhere currently, especially when there are so many ways to do so for free, what makes a dev think they'd pay to convene somewhere?
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
10 years later you go looking:) I bet some of the staff at mmorpg.com remembers a few groups. No evidence of any kind will ever be considered valid though. How's business here at mmorpg.com?
Besides, without a developer who shares that vision and believes in the experience it offers it would be a waste of time. When one of those appear, the old timers come out of the woodwork. Star citizen is how it works. Old school games were all different experiences. You can't collect features for us...that's what the newer games do.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
What you mean to say is they found most every other group that they have found. If they haven't found a group that you don't know of, you wouldn't know they haven't found it.
Also as I've said many many times the much simpler answer is that WoW skewed the market towards a certain type of game which, in the context of the MMO genre, is almost the opposite of what we want. So for years they copied that type of game which, again, is basically the opposite of the type of game we want. That's why our games haven't been made, not because we simply don't exist as a market.