What they've stated is if you want them, and you believe there is market, then you need to show the devs that market.
So we're not being blamed, but it's our fault that the games aren't being made because we haven't shown developers that we're a market that exists?
No it isn't your fault that the games you want aren't being made.
However if you want a particular game, it is your responsibility to convince the people that make the games that there is a market for it.
It actually isn't. It's the responsibility of the person in charge of determining what is a viable game to figure out what people want. They don't owe it to me personally, but that's what they get paid for. If there's an untapped market, they should know that.
There's a fundamental problem with this. What you're talking about are concessions by companies, for the most part. In the case of the MMORPG market making games, it's beneficial for them to make a successful game. So they have an incentive to make the game.
Your going to have to explain that one to me.
You call it a concession that a car company produces a different king of car, done in response to an apparent demand by consumers, and so it can make a profit from it.
However a game company that produces a different kind of game, in response to an apparent demand by consumers, and so it can make a profit from it - is not a concession?
It's beneficial to the car manufacters to make a successfull car, so they have an incentive to make the car.
Whats the difference between the two.
Both are in response to demand from consumers, both done to satisfy that demand, and both done so the company can make a profit.
The only difference is in the car, the consumers were able to show that there were a significant voice, satisfying the car company that it could make a profit.
Yeah I posted that in haste from my phone. There isn't really a difference in that way. The difference is the fact that people have a reason to actively oppose what the company is doing. If I don't like a game, I don't play it. If I disagree with a car company destroying the planet, I protest it.
Aside from whether or not it's fundamentally different, it's also just on a vastly different scale, which you kind of conceded. Are there any examples of this not related to environmental/humanitarian issues? Because I think the point has been made if these are the examples you can give of other times people have had to do what you're asking us to do for videogames.
Easy - simply exist somewhere in a group. A company can pick almost any interest and find SIGs, Yahoo groups, Google groups, IRC channels, forums, social networks online for them. They can find plenty of offline groups, associations and services. They can find information on sales related to the things they buy. They can order research papers, market analysis, Neilsen studies, etc.
What is an "old school" MMO? Where are the people that talk about them? How many of them are there? Right now, if someone wanted to try to find that out, would they come up with more than maybe a few dozen people across various forums asking for "old school" MMOs? Would anything they glean from those few locations give any insight into what a general idea of an "old school" MMO is?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You're assuming that the fan wants it built and nobody else does. There are developers who want to make these games. And there are publishers who want to make any game that sells.
So when you say "if a fan wants a particular game built, then it's up to them to do the initial work", that's just not an honest way to approach the subject.
I think you're missing something there, and that's the fact that if the developers, publishers or investors had data that showed there was interest for it, then publishers and investors would back it.
You and VR are getting hung up on "WoW changed things" but no one here has contested that. However, it's one of the many factors involved, not the sole factor.
Let's look back at 2006-2009, because that was a great example of one of the shifts in development post-WOW. There was lots of data that showed there was a growing tween and family market. Toon Town and Puzzle Pirates had been out for a while and both were proving reasonable successful, the latter moreso. Habbo Hotel and Maplestory were starting to really kick ass and taking names.
These were the new sandbox players. They didn't have preconceptions about what an MMO should be - they just viewed these as online games. There was far more room to get creative, so more developers, big and small, now having data that this is something viable started entering the market. KingsIsle is one of the smaller developers, creating Wizard 101 and the recent followup of Pirate 101. SOE targeted that group with Free Realms and Star Wars Clone Wars Adventures. GamersFirst (at the ime, K2 Networks), AeriaGames, IJJI, and several others starting heavily porting titles over to the NA/EU audience.
You also had the gamers from other genres getting into online gaming. Again, an audience without preconceptions about what an MMO should be. Players that would look at an online game for what it is and not for a personal checklist of what they feel it should be. Millions of people who would try a new game and judge it on its personal merits rather than thumb thier nose at it for not being a "real" MMO. Action RPGs, MMOFPS, virtual worlds and the insanely popular but now subsiding fad of Facebook games (ex: Mob Wars, Farmville).
All of those groups were identifiable in some way or another. Many of them were simply the transition to online multiplayer gameplay . A recent example of which would be the increase in MOBAs and online TCGs over the past few years.
When there's data showing an untapped or under-served market, the corporations jump on it. It is a convenient excuse to post "They want WOW money so they are all trying to make WOW clones because WOW is successful," but the reality is that NO ONE is trying to make the next WOW right now, nor have they tried for years. They are exploring other avenues in multiplayer online gaming, most of which aren't even on your radar which could very well be why you are only seeing "WOW clones" - the ones that aren't you probably don't consider to be a "real" MMO.
Your first step needs to be something other than "old school" because that means NOTHING to a developer. DAoC? UO? EQ? AC? What is the feature set? What is the gameplay that you want?
Why aren't you playing EQ? Do you want EQ with modern graphics? Ok, so why aren't you playing Vanguard?
Seriously... why? I'm not saying you should or that you need to but genuinely asking why Vanguard - designed and sold as an old school MMO, currently with about a half a decade of updates under its belt - doesn't fit the bill.
When devs look at data, part of that data is history, and so far history has shown that people aren't really playing the games that fit the various "old school" molds. And of the people that are, how many are going to drop their current game to go to the new shiny one? AND... if they will quickly drop their current one to get the new shiny one, what's to say they won't do the same if an even shinier title comes out a few months after that?
Developers, publishers and investors have millions of dollars for a reason - they make educated decisions about the markets and put their money where there is money to be made. If you show them you're a viable group to sink money into, they will gladly do it.
Why wouldn't they play Vanguard? I wasn't around for nor am I a hardcore grind type of player. But from what heard it was thr functional aspects of the game that made it unfun. I don't like the expectations that were are supposed to support games with feature sets we want that are just bad games.
You're not going to pin down what an old school game is or what individual features people want. But you can make games based around SWG like with features that allow you to build towns and has player interdependency in crafting and combat or Everquest that has is more virtual world, lore heavy, complex factions, dangerous world and group heavy combat. 4 or 5 core features that aren't found in modern games.
I think the point is that there is nothing we can show that can show its worth reaching untapped markets if they don't believe its worth it. They're unlikely to find an untapped market that would perform any better than a typical themepark. So why risk making an unfamiliar game to unknown market that will maybe net you a typical game vs. maybe hitting the WoW lottery and make another themepark that they have the formula down pack? It will just take bold developers not begging players.
Blaming players for not accepting alternative games is kind of weird. Its like blaming football gamers that they're not open minded because they want a Madden vs. NFL Streets or another arcade 2 on 2 exaggerated game. There is a market for both but they may not overlap just because they're NFL football.
You're assuming that the fan wants it built and nobody else does. There are developers who want to make these games. And there are publishers who want to make any game that sells.
So when you say "if a fan wants a particular game built, then it's up to them to do the initial work", that's just not an honest way to approach the subject.
I think you're missing something there, and that's the fact that if the developers, publishers or investors had data that showed there was interest for it, then publishers and investors would back it.
You and VR are getting hung up on "WoW changed things" but no one here has contested that. However, it's one of the many factors involved, not the sole factor.
Let's look back at 2006-2009, because that was a great example of one of the shifts in development post-WOW. There was lots of data that showed there was a growing tween and family market. Toon Town and Puzzle Pirates had been out for a while and both were proving reasonable successful, the latter moreso. Habbo Hotel and Maplestory were starting to really kick ass and taking names.
These were the new sandbox players. They didn't have preconceptions about what an MMO should be - they just viewed these as online games. There was far more room to get creative, so more developers, big and small, now having data that this is something viable started entering the market. KingsIsle is one of the smaller developers, creating Wizard 101 and the recent followup of Pirate 101. SOE targeted that group with Free Realms and Star Wars Clone Wars Adventures. GamersFirst (at the ime, K2 Networks), AeriaGames, IJJI, and several others starting heavily porting titles over to the NA/EU audience.
You also had the gamers from other genres getting into online gaming. Again, an audience without preconceptions about what an MMO should be. Players that would look at an online game for what it is and not for a personal checklist of what they feel it should be. Millions of people who would try a new game and judge it on its personal merits rather than thumb thier nose at it for not being a "real" MMO. Action RPGs, MMOFPS, virtual worlds and the insanely popular but now subsiding fad of Facebook games (ex: Mob Wars, Farmville).
All of those groups were identifiable in some way or another. Many of them were simply the transition to online multiplayer gameplay . A recent example of which would be the increase in MOBAs and online TCGs over the past few years.
Honestly I'm not sure what point you're trying to make that could conflict with anything I've said. So there have been times when the market has responded to increases in certain demographics. What's your point?
Also, you talk about people without preconceptions on what the genre should be as if that's somehow a more pure or desirable position to be in. I'd simply say ignorance is bliss. Would I wipe my memory of oldschool/sandbox games in order to enjoy modern MMOs more? Maybe. But the fact is that I have knowledge of both and the former is far more appealing to me. It's not "thumbing your nose" at something to criticize it.
When there's data showing an untapped or under-served market, the corporations jump on it. It is a convenient excuse to post "They want WOW money so they are all trying to make WOW clones because WOW is successful," but the reality is that NO ONE is trying to make the next WOW right now, nor have they tried for years. They are exploring other avenues in multiplayer online gaming, most of which aren't even on your radar which could very well be why you are only seeing "WOW clones" - the ones that aren't you probably don't consider to be a "real" MMO.
FFXIV was a WoW clone. It is a super linear, tab-targeted, gear based, quest hub, end-game focused themepark. Maybe the problem is we just don't agree on what a WoW clone is... because they still seem to be very prevalent.
And by all means point these new MMOs out to me because I haven't seen any new MMO that would sit the description of what I'd want. Though I think the ones you're talking about are exactly as you predict I'd claim - not a real MMO. But there's a reason they're not on my radar, and it's because they're not going after the same people, they're not in the same genre. An increase in themeparks means a decrease in sandboxes. It doesn't mean a decrease in farmville.
Your first step needs to be something other than "old school" because that means NOTHING to a developer. DAoC? UO? EQ? AC? What is the feature set? What is the gameplay that you want?
Why aren't you playing EQ? Do you want EQ with modern graphics? Ok, so why aren't you playing Vanguard?
Seriously... why? I'm not saying you should or that you need to but genuinely asking why Vanguard - designed and sold as an old school MMO, currently with about a half a decade of updates under its belt - doesn't fit the bill.
When devs look at data, part of that data is history, and so far history has shown that people aren't really playing the games that fit the various "old school" molds. And of the people that are, how many are going to drop their current game to go to the new shiny one? AND... if they will quickly drop their current one to get the new shiny one, what's to say they won't do the same if an even shinier title comes out a few months after that?
Developers, publishers and investors have millions of dollars for a reason - they make educated decisions about the markets and put their money where there is money to be made. If you show them you're a viable group to sink money into, they will gladly do it.
I'm not playing Vanguard quite simply for the same reason I'm not playing a lot of MMOs: I can't get my friends to play them. But I'm not an EQ fan, I'm a UO/SWG fan. Are there any games out there that fit those descriptions?
There's something you have to understand about this discussion. When people are talking about oldschool games, they're noticing a trend away from niche and towards mainstream. Away from engrossing and towards casual. Nobody is claiming that all of the "oldschool" fans are on the same page about specific game they'd like to play, but they're on the same page about the genre going downhill. And yes, a shift towards casual means going downhill.
So when you say we need to get our ducks in a row and unite and figure out what game we want and show developers that we want it, you're totally missing the point. That's not people asking for a specific game, that's people showing their contempt for the current direction.
However, if you ask a lot of oldschool advocates what they want, they'd talk about sandbox elements, creating a virtual world with more of a focus on community, etc. And by the way, you see a lot of games coming out that promise these things and more. Why do we see these sandbox games in production if not because of all of us on these and other forums talking about it nonstop?
The OP purported to have a design for an 'old school' game. They also purported to have something like $2M, and had taken it upon themselves to approach a developer (Petroglyph) to develop the game. Now, obviously, there's no way to know if they really even had a game design, or $2M to spend on the game, but the general idea of what it actually takes is there. Seventy pages of design, which still needed additional work, lots and lots of money and an experienced developer willing to do the job.
1. A Design or Definition for an 'Old School' Game: It can't be the definition, because there are some opposing viewpoints on what is the 'old school' game. The lines could be drawn between UO and EQ, but it's been a lot of years since those games released, and a lot of time to refine what those games mean. The design or definition needs to be fairly complete.
2. Money. Lots and Lots of Money: Unless a developer has decided to spend lots and lots of money themselves on a game that they want to make, no matter what kind of market exists for it or not, somebody has to provide the money it costs to develop a game.
3. A Developer, Preferably Experienced: An amateur programmer and an amateur graphic artist are not going to make an MMORPG. It may be possible to make other kinds of games, or mods for other kinds of games, but an MMORPG crosses into many development areas, and a the experience needed to successfully develop one needs to be both wide, and deep. I'm not talking about the ideas of the game, I'm talking about the mechanical execution.
Now, these three things aren't just necessary for an 'old school' game, they are necessary for any MMORPG. The real question isn't, "What does it take", the real question is, "Why hasn't anyone done it yet?" It's that there is a lack in one or more of "Design", "Money" or "Developer" resources. The solution is to bring together those three things, because that's how all video games get made, not just 'old school' MMORPGs.
**
Not specifically the topic of this particular post, but something else to consider is that for developers to spontaneously decide to develop a particular kind of game, they have to have some desire to do so. This discussion has gone along for awhile, and it seems like the scenario is implied to be a bunch of developers want to make 'old school' games, but don't because they don't believe the market is there. Even if we assume that the old school market is viable, it doesn't seem likely that the population distribution for developers would be all that different from the general population of gamers. If 'old school' gamers are a minority, then developers who are also 'old school' gamers would also be in the minority. If one of the absolute necessities for a game to get developed is a developer willing to do it, and there are fewer 'old school' MMORPG developers than other kinds of game developers, then the odds that a developer will spontaneously decide to make an 'old school' MMORPG is less than other types of games.
Meh. Just something to think about. This post isn't a response to anything in particular, just something I've been thinking about while playing video games. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
There's a fundamental problem with this. What you're talking about are concessions by companies, for the most part. In the case of the MMORPG market making games, it's beneficial for them to make a successful game. So they have an incentive to make the game.
Your going to have to explain that one to me.
You call it a concession that a car company produces a different king of car, done in response to an apparent demand by consumers, and so it can make a profit from it.
However a game company that produces a different kind of game, in response to an apparent demand by consumers, and so it can make a profit from it - is not a concession?
It's beneficial to the car manufacters to make a successfull car, so they have an incentive to make the car.
Whats the difference between the two.
Both are in response to demand from consumers, both done to satisfy that demand, and both done so the company can make a profit.
The only difference is in the car, the consumers were able to show that there were a significant voice, satisfying the car company that it could make a profit.
Yeah I posted that in haste from my phone. There isn't really a difference in that way. The difference is the fact that people have a reason to actively oppose what the company is doing. If I don't like a game, I don't play it. If I disagree with a car company destroying the planet, I protest it.
Aside from whether or not it's fundamentally different, it's also just on a vastly different scale, which you kind of conceded. Are there any examples of this not related to environmental/humanitarian issues? Because I think the point has been made if these are the examples you can give of other times people have had to do what you're asking us to do for videogames.
Easy - simply exist somewhere in a group. A company can pick almost any interest and find SIGs, Yahoo groups, Google groups, IRC channels, forums, social networks online for them. They can find plenty of offline groups, associations and services. They can find information on sales related to the things they buy. They can order research papers, market analysis, Neilsen studies, etc.
What is an "old school" MMO? Where are the people that talk about them? How many of them are there? Right now, if someone wanted to try to find that out, would they come up with more than maybe a few dozen people across various forums asking for "old school" MMOs? Would anything they glean from those few locations give any insight into what a general idea of an "old school" MMO is?
I'm not sure where on earth you're getting "a few dozen." But anywhere I see MMOs discussed there seems to be a stark contrast between the types of people: newschool and oldschool.
If they are the one that wants to make a game, it is nobody's but their responsibility to figure out if it's viable. Yours is the more humble approach to take, and the world would probably be filled with better people if we all thought like that, but taking myself sort of out of the equation and just looking at it objectively: no, it's their responsibility. People don't generally get together, form groups, sign petitions, etc to tell companies what they want. Companies figure out what people want and then give it to them. That's how it has always worked.
Actually yes that happens all the time.
People tell companies what they want all the time. And companies ask people what they want all the time.
At the end of the day, it is no ones responsibility but yours if you want something done.
The devs are allready doing what they believe will work.
Not to put you on the spot because I only do that when somebody is being an asshole, but when has a group of consumers done more to show a company what they want than we have? We're all over forums and video comments making our opinions known.
Access to home entertainment. Remember when we couldn't watch whatever movies we wanted by renting them? People clamored for the ability to watch movies. The industry responded by offering access to rent movies. Even at the start it was a rare treat and some IPs like Star Wars weren't even available.
The consumer wanted more and communicated it. They wanted greater access to a wider selection. The industry adapted.
But, you still couldn't buy most movies. They were cost prohibitive or just not offered. The consumers who wanted this made their desire known and the industry responded.
Sometimes it also works in the other direction. The industry trying to attract more consumers, sell more movies, and sell more hardware improved technology through Laser Discs, then DVDs, and eventually Blu-Ray discs. They offered more and more for sale because consumers would buy that. Consumers as a whole didn't really clamor for DVDs, although I wouldn't be surprised if a segment of the movie consuming public requested better quality formats.
The latest thing consumers have signaled their interest in is streaming media. There is a growing group of people who would rather just stream a movie they want rather than buy a disc. Some people want to "buy" the movie through a service and have it available online, thus Amazon instant video and VUDU.
The people who pushed these changes did so by making themselves known. The industry did do their part as well once they realized the potential that the groups were collectively large enough to monetize.
So there is you example showing both the responsibility of the consumer to make their voice known, and of the industry to do their homework and offer a profitable solution.
The home entertainment analogy isn't great because that's really not so much somebody preferring one product over another, it's simply an evolution in the same market. It's also unobjectionable and not really a preference thing... not many people would turn down better quality video or the ability to watch something in their own home. It's also largely based on technology. Obviously innovations in technology are expedited when there's a demand for them, but it's hard to say if that breakthrough was because people demanded it or if because it was now simply possible and it was something always just wanted because.... why wouldn't you want it?
Also, I know that it's on both sides. If you'll recall, the other guys are the ones saying it's MY responsibility alone to make myself known. I'm saying no, it's also their responsibility to notice me. If it weren't, why would they be professionals? I've also pointed out that I have made myself known, a lot of people have. Why else are there a lot of sandbox games on the horizon? The Repopulation is touted as a mix of SWG and Shadowbane.... add UO to that list and it would probably be my perfect game. It may be anyway, depending on how the "hardcore" server plays out.
If you believe there is a viable "oldschool" mmo market segment then make your voice heard by congregating with other like minded gamers. If you don't do your part the industry won't take your voice seriously. That *is* doing their job.
A case in point is Camelot Unchained. Some developers along with Marc Jacobs felt they had heard enough people clamor for an old school DAoC experience. These people assembled enough of a cohesive voice that they were heard. They did their part by putting together a KS as a market test tool. Enough people responded that they felt they could continue with development. They are risking millions of their own dollars to do so. They're not going to do that for a fickle gamers' whim.
If the "oldschool" gamer can't define their exact niche and how they want it and make their voice known, they don't deserve to get the game they want. If they can and are willing to put their money where their mouth is then they may get their wish.
Here's the thing, you guys are arguing from a convenient postion. You're simply assuming that we haven't made our voice heard. Our point is that our voice has been heard, but the genre is slow to react because of the huge focus on themeparks for the past ten years. But as you point out there are other games, such as Camelot Unchained, that are looking to fill that role.... so obviously that role exists, or at least people with the capability to make a game believes that it exists. Why do you assume we haven't done what we needed to while all a lot of sandbox/oldschool games are being produced?
Not specifically the topic of this particular post, but something else to consider is that for developers to spontaneously decide to develop a particular kind of game, they have to have some desire to do so. This discussion has gone along for awhile, and it seems like the scenario is implied to be a bunch of developers want to make 'old school' games, but don't because they don't believe the market is there. Even if we assume that the old school market is viable, it doesn't seem likely that the population distribution for developers would be all that different from the general population of gamers. If 'old school' gamers are a minority, then developers who are also 'old school' gamers would also be in the minority. If one of the absolute necessities for a game to get developed is a developer willing to do it, and there are fewer 'old school' MMORPG developers than other kinds of game developers, then the odds that a developer will spontaneously decide to make an 'old school' MMORPG is less than other types of games.
Meh. Just something to think about. This post isn't a response to anything in particular, just something I've been thinking about while playing video games. :-)
Well If I had to guess I would say that a lot of developers' pure ideas for games would be games that oldschool/sandbox players would prefer, but publishers force their hands quite a bit.
Also I will point out that it's probably not accurate to say that since the oldschool playerbase is a certain % of the overall playerbase that oldschool developers make up the same % of overall developers. For instance, I'd say that on a spectrum of inexperienced to experienced, the oldschool/sandbox players probably tend to fall on more of the experienced end than newschool/themepark players would. If that's the case, it would seem that developers, who are typically far more experienced in the genre than the average player, would probably have more of a skew towards oldschool tendencies. Also it just seems like you're more likely to have an oldschool developer/programmer/whatever working on a team for a themepark than vice versa. Not sure about that last one though.
Its not that developers don't want to make old school, hardcore sandbox MMO's, its that publishers don't have faith in it.
If the publishers don't have faith in it, developers don't have the money and resources to create such an MMO. The ones who really want to make sandbox MMO's are resorting to crowdfunding now:
You're assuming that the fan wants it built and nobody else does. There are developers who want to make these games. And there are publishers who want to make any game that sells.
So when you say "if a fan wants a particular game built, then it's up to them to do the initial work", that's just not an honest way to approach the subject.
I think you're missing something there, and that's the fact that if the developers, publishers or investors had data that showed there was interest for it, then publishers and investors would back it.
You and VR are getting hung up on "WoW changed things" but no one here has contested that. However, it's one of the many factors involved, not the sole factor.
Let's look back at 2006-2009, because that was a great example of one of the shifts in development post-WOW. There was lots of data that showed there was a growing tween and family market. Toon Town and Puzzle Pirates had been out for a while and both were proving reasonable successful, the latter moreso. Habbo Hotel and Maplestory were starting to really kick ass and taking names.
These were the new sandbox players. They didn't have preconceptions about what an MMO should be - they just viewed these as online games. There was far more room to get creative, so more developers, big and small, now having data that this is something viable started entering the market. KingsIsle is one of the smaller developers, creating Wizard 101 and the recent followup of Pirate 101. SOE targeted that group with Free Realms and Star Wars Clone Wars Adventures. GamersFirst (at the ime, K2 Networks), AeriaGames, IJJI, and several others starting heavily porting titles over to the NA/EU audience.
You also had the gamers from other genres getting into online gaming. Again, an audience without preconceptions about what an MMO should be. Players that would look at an online game for what it is and not for a personal checklist of what they feel it should be. Millions of people who would try a new game and judge it on its personal merits rather than thumb thier nose at it for not being a "real" MMO. Action RPGs, MMOFPS, virtual worlds and the insanely popular but now subsiding fad of Facebook games (ex: Mob Wars, Farmville).
All of those groups were identifiable in some way or another. Many of them were simply the transition to online multiplayer gameplay . A recent example of which would be the increase in MOBAs and online TCGs over the past few years.
When there's data showing an untapped or under-served market, the corporations jump on it. It is a convenient excuse to post "They want WOW money so they are all trying to make WOW clones because WOW is successful," but the reality is that NO ONE is trying to make the next WOW right now, nor have they tried for years. They are exploring other avenues in multiplayer online gaming, most of which aren't even on your radar which could very well be why you are only seeing "WOW clones" - the ones that aren't you probably don't consider to be a "real" MMO.
Your first step needs to be something other than "old school" because that means NOTHING to a developer. DAoC? UO? EQ? AC? What is the feature set? What is the gameplay that you want?
Why aren't you playing EQ? Do you want EQ with modern graphics? Ok, so why aren't you playing Vanguard?
Seriously... why? I'm not saying you should or that you need to but genuinely asking why Vanguard - designed and sold as an old school MMO, currently with about a half a decade of updates under its belt - doesn't fit the bill.
When devs look at data, part of that data is history, and so far history has shown that people aren't really playing the games that fit the various "old school" molds. And of the people that are, how many are going to drop their current game to go to the new shiny one? AND... if they will quickly drop their current one to get the new shiny one, what's to say they won't do the same if an even shinier title comes out a few months after that?
Developers, publishers and investors have millions of dollars for a reason - they make educated decisions about the markets and put their money where there is money to be made. If you show them you're a viable group to sink money into, they will gladly do it.
Why wouldn't they play Vanguard? I wasn't around for nor am I a hardcore grind type of player. But from what heard it was thr functional aspects of the game that made it unfun. I don't like the expectations that were are supposed to support games with feature sets we want that are just bad games.
And that's the type of feedback that needs to be gathered and quanitified.
You're not going to pin down what an old school game is or what individual features people want. But you can make games based around SWG like with features that allow you to build towns and has player interdependency in crafting and combat or Everquest that has is more virtual world, lore heavy, complex factions, dangerous world and group heavy combat. 4 or 5 core features that aren't found in modern games.
Exactly. "Old school" means nothing to a developer but interest in a feature set does. The question is, what size audience wants that particular set, and is it large enough or persistent enough (I don't think many here consider retention or churn) to make it viable to build for?
I think the point is that there is nothing we can show that can show its worth reaching untapped markets if they don't believe its worth it. They're unlikely to find an untapped market that would perform any better than a typical themepark. So why risk making an unfamiliar game to unknown market that will maybe net you a typical game vs. maybe hitting the WoW lottery and make another themepark that they have the formula down pack? It will just take bold developers not begging players.
You make a lot of assumptions there, but the most important part is this "So why risk making an unfamiliar game to unknown market..." No business dies that. Ever. That isn't risk. It is stupidity. There is a huge difference between building for an identifiable small/fringe audience and building based on hopes that such an audience exists.
It doesn't make a difference how "bold" a developer is. Without data on what the group wants and how big the group is, even the most adventurous of money-wasting developers isn't going to touch it with a ten-foot pole.
For example, the fans of DAoC-style gameplay were identifiable. They existed in numbers on the VNBoards for years, and their presence is obvious in almost every PVP MMO that has come out since, often in the same guilds that they started back in DAoC. It was very clear that there was a possible demand for something like CU. The Kickstarter wasn't the test to see if there was interest, it was the proof of the interest for investors and other industry sources. The research was done long before the KS ever happened. Had the research shown little interest, they never would have bothered with the KS campaign, if for no other reason than a dismal public crowdsourcing would be damaging to the brand.
Blaming players for not accepting alternative games is kind of weird. Its like blaming football gamers that they're not open minded because they want a Madden vs. NFL Streets or another arcade 2 on 2 exaggerated game. There is a market for both but they may not overlap just because they're NFL football.
Nowhere did I say players should accept an alternative or blame them for not doing so. I actually explicitly explained that is not what the question was specifically because the poster I was replying to has a history of reading what isn't there and arguing points that aren't being made. Please read it again.
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
I think SWG fans have done 10 times what you guys are asking for. They are known pretty much in every community that discusses games. There isn't a larger group with more demand that is more passionate out there.
What else could they possibly do?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I think SWG fans have done 10 times what you guys are asking for. They are known pretty much in every community that discusses games. There isn't a larger group with more demand that is more passionate out there.
What else could they possibly do?
For sure. It feels like they're asking us to do the work of the dev/publisher, which is gather this information. We're supposed to voice our opinions, and we do... oh my gosh do we voice our opinions. The problem is when we do, we get labeled as having rose tinted glasses, being the "extremely vocal minority", etc.
"You make a lot of assumptions there, but the most important part is this "So why risk making an unfamiliar game to unknown market..." No business dies that. Ever. That isn't risk. It is stupidity. There is a huge difference between building for an identifiable small/fringe audience and building based on hopes that such an audience exists.
It doesn't make a difference how "bold" a developer is. Without data on what the group wants and how big the group is, even the most adventurous of money-wasting developers isn't going to touch it with a ten-foot pole.
For example, the fans of DAoC-style gameplay were identifiable. They existed in numbers on the VNBoards for years, and their presence is obvious in almost every PVP MMO that has come out since, often in the same guilds that they started back in DAoC. It was very clear that there was a possible demand for something like CU. The Kickstarter wasn't the test to see if there was interest, it was the proof of the interest for investors and other industry sources. The research was done long before the KS ever happened. Had the research shown little interest, they never would have bothered with the KS campaign, if for no other reason than a dismal public crowdsourcing would be damaging to the brand. "
That's not true because many business start with this is good and I think the world will like it. There are no predictions that are 100% or likely or we wouldn't have faliures nor sleeper hits. Many businesses are started by every day people not people in suits polling and quantifying every piece of information. Again, there are people who are bold who make the improbable a hit.
DAoC seems to me to be more about developers of the same game going on to try to recreate the game to the same audience because the core DAoC was changed. DAoC wasn't never even a huge game in the first place but the developers are the brain childs behind the first now they're doing it again. Of course there are interest. From my view there are just as much interest and guilds still alive 16 years later and they're not making the next UO and it simply hasn't happened, I've seen interest in many types of games on like EQ or AC or SWG with people remaking the game through emulation. I've played tons of UO emulated games with rather large population for private servers. Still haven't seen a new UO type game.
You guys seem to have this weird faith in publishers. You say "If the market existed, thered be a game for it" as if Publisher understood the market. IF publishers understood MMOs, we wouldn't have the massive commercial failures that almost every AAA MMO has seen over the last 8 years.
I think SWG fans have done 10 times what you guys are asking for. They are known pretty much in every community that discusses games. There isn't a larger group with more demand that is more passionate out there.
What else could they possibly do?
For sure. It feels like they're asking us to do the work of the dev/publisher, which is gather this information. We're supposed to voice our opinions, and we do... oh my gosh do we voice our opinions. The problem is when we do, we get labeled as having rose tinted glasses, being the "extremely vocal minority", etc.
Its simply not realistic. As much as people want to deny the fact is that the WoW factor has skewered what people are willing to risk in the MMO. It's not about a viable market demand its about the potential vs. risk. A game made in WoW's image has the potential for 12+ million subscribers while EQ or SWG or UO pretty much was the peak of old school games at 500-250k. I think the type of games being made speaks for itself.
Say you have 5 million player who are into "Old School Games" and you break them down to those will subscribe into any of the different type of MMORPGs as 500-300k if its good. Why risk learning a new type of game audience that's going to max out in the hundreds of thousands than throw a net at likely 20 million who you might spike at 800k and hold down a steady 200k through P2P with a steady influx of new and old spending on your game once it goes F2P?
Forget date just look at the reality of what's been made. Since 2004 there has been almost 0 game not made WoW's image which speaks volumes. Other types of MMORPG are being forced largely to be made by indie, players themselves and developers recreating their old games.
Originally posted by Tibernicuspa You guys seem to have this weird faith in publishers. You say "If the market existed, thered be a game for it" as if Publisher understood the market. IF publishers understood MMOs, we wouldn't have the massive commercial failures that almost every AAA MMO has seen over the last 8 years.
That's not true because many business start with this is good and I think the world will like it. There are no predictions that are 100% or likely or we wouldn't have faliures nor sleeper hits. Many businesses are started by every day people not people in suits polling and quantifying every piece of information. Again, there are people who are bold who make the improbable a hit.
I understand you believe that's how it happens. I am telling you from practice and experience that is simply not how a business, even one created by the "bold", is started.
VR, "build it and they will come" is a line in a movie about ghost baseball players in a cornfield. It's not how any business - EvilCorpCo or hip wide-eyed indie - works. No one starts a business without even the most basic of business plans or business strategies, and there is no way to create either if you don't know anything about your target audience, especially if you have no idea what the size of it is.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Tibernicuspa You guys seem to have this weird faith in publishers. You say "If the market existed, thered be a game for it" as if Publisher understood the market. IF publishers understood MMOs, we wouldn't have the massive commercial failures that almost every AAA MMO has seen over the last 8 years.
Bump.
In this day and age, a publisher isn't really necessary for most MMOs, especially a niche one.
That's immaterial, though, as no one is putting blind faith in publishers. However it's a pretty damn good bet that they have done a lot deeper research and have far more reliable numbers at their disposal than those who are here waggling fingers at them. Right?
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
I think SWG fans have done 10 times what you guys are asking for. They are known pretty much in every community that discusses games. There isn't a larger group with more demand that is more passionate out there.
What else could they possibly do?
For sure. It feels like they're asking us to do the work of the dev/publisher, which is gather this information. We're supposed to voice our opinions, and we do... oh my gosh do we voice our opinions. The problem is when we do, we get labeled as having rose tinted glasses, being the "extremely vocal minority", etc.
Its simply not realistic. As much as people want to deny the fact is that the WoW factor has skewered what people are willing to risk in the MMO. It's not about a viable market demand its about the potential vs. risk. A game made in WoW's image has the potential for 12+ million subscribers while EQ or SWG or UO pretty much was the peak of old school games at 500-250k. I think the type of games being made speaks for itself.
Say you have 5 million player who are into "Old School Games" and you break them down to those will subscribe into any of the different type of MMORPGs as 500-300k if its good. Why risk learning a new type of game audience that's going to max out in the hundreds of thousands than throw a net at likely 20 million who you might spike at 800k and hold down a steady 200k through P2P with a steady influx of new and old spending on your game once it goes F2P?
Forget date just look at the reality of what's been made. Since 2004 there has been almost 0 game not made WoW's image which speaks volumes. Other types of MMORPG are being forced largely to be made by indie, players themselves and developers recreating their old games.
Let them try another one then. That's how you build a brand.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Originally posted by Tibernicuspa You guys seem to have this weird faith in publishers. You say "If the market existed, thered be a game for it" as if Publisher understood the market. IF publishers understood MMOs, we wouldn't have the massive commercial failures that almost every AAA MMO has seen over the last 8 years.
Bump.
In this day and age, a publisher isn't really necessary for most MMOs, especially a niche one.
That's immaterial, though, as no one is putting blind faith in publishers. However it's a pretty damn good bet that they have done a lot deeper research and have far more reliable numbers at their disposal than those who are here waggling fingers at them. Right?
This is true, but the MMO market seems to be the most unpredictable market out there. Games like EVE were proclaimed DOA while the SWTOR's of the world garnered miraculous ratings out of the gate. Look at where they are now.
Numbers are great. I really believe that. But I also believe the MMO market has changed so much in just 10-12 years that trying to pick a winner is impossible. We went from 500k subs being considered awesome to WoW taking the crown at 12-ish million subs to F2P saturating the market and greatly changing the numbers game since a "paying customer" is no longer the only type of customer you have. I would say it gets a lot more challenging to predict success when you have different tiers of customers paying different dollar amounts in a variety of countries.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
Originally posted by Tibernicuspa You guys seem to have this weird faith in publishers. You say "If the market existed, thered be a game for it" as if Publisher understood the market. IF publishers understood MMOs, we wouldn't have the massive commercial failures that almost every AAA MMO has seen over the last 8 years.
Bump.
In this day and age, a publisher isn't really necessary for most MMOs, especially a niche one.
That's immaterial, though, as no one is putting blind faith in publishers. However it's a pretty damn good bet that they have done a lot deeper research and have far more reliable numbers at their disposal than those who are here waggling fingers at them. Right?
But if you have the numbers, the party is almost over. At some point a risk will have to be taken.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
This is really more simple than it seems, based on countless talks and interviews with developers.
There are many markets that are untapped and currently viable. Including MMO's. The problem isn't that there isn't profit to be made with creating and old-school MMO. The problem isn't that devleopers don't want to make the game - because they do. The problem is that the Publishers have been consolidated over the last 10 years to just a handful of huge companies and those companies don't want to get out of bed for any potential game that isn't a guaranteed 10 million copies sold.
All that's required to make an old-school MMO viable at this point is a crowd-funding campaign. I'm sure something is being put together by a studio somewhere. And if not, whoever picks up on this and gets there first is going to reap the rewards. Possibly being set up for life, like Blizzard.
Comments
huh??
Easy - simply exist somewhere in a group. A company can pick almost any interest and find SIGs, Yahoo groups, Google groups, IRC channels, forums, social networks online for them. They can find plenty of offline groups, associations and services. They can find information on sales related to the things they buy. They can order research papers, market analysis, Neilsen studies, etc.
What is an "old school" MMO? Where are the people that talk about them? How many of them are there? Right now, if someone wanted to try to find that out, would they come up with more than maybe a few dozen people across various forums asking for "old school" MMOs? Would anything they glean from those few locations give any insight into what a general idea of an "old school" MMO is?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Why wouldn't they play Vanguard? I wasn't around for nor am I a hardcore grind type of player. But from what heard it was thr functional aspects of the game that made it unfun. I don't like the expectations that were are supposed to support games with feature sets we want that are just bad games.
You're not going to pin down what an old school game is or what individual features people want. But you can make games based around SWG like with features that allow you to build towns and has player interdependency in crafting and combat or Everquest that has is more virtual world, lore heavy, complex factions, dangerous world and group heavy combat. 4 or 5 core features that aren't found in modern games.
I think the point is that there is nothing we can show that can show its worth reaching untapped markets if they don't believe its worth it. They're unlikely to find an untapped market that would perform any better than a typical themepark. So why risk making an unfamiliar game to unknown market that will maybe net you a typical game vs. maybe hitting the WoW lottery and make another themepark that they have the formula down pack? It will just take bold developers not begging players.
Blaming players for not accepting alternative games is kind of weird. Its like blaming football gamers that they're not open minded because they want a Madden vs. NFL Streets or another arcade 2 on 2 exaggerated game. There is a market for both but they may not overlap just because they're NFL football.
Honestly I'm not sure what point you're trying to make that could conflict with anything I've said. So there have been times when the market has responded to increases in certain demographics. What's your point?
Also, you talk about people without preconceptions on what the genre should be as if that's somehow a more pure or desirable position to be in. I'd simply say ignorance is bliss. Would I wipe my memory of oldschool/sandbox games in order to enjoy modern MMOs more? Maybe. But the fact is that I have knowledge of both and the former is far more appealing to me. It's not "thumbing your nose" at something to criticize it.
FFXIV was a WoW clone. It is a super linear, tab-targeted, gear based, quest hub, end-game focused themepark. Maybe the problem is we just don't agree on what a WoW clone is... because they still seem to be very prevalent.
And by all means point these new MMOs out to me because I haven't seen any new MMO that would sit the description of what I'd want. Though I think the ones you're talking about are exactly as you predict I'd claim - not a real MMO. But there's a reason they're not on my radar, and it's because they're not going after the same people, they're not in the same genre. An increase in themeparks means a decrease in sandboxes. It doesn't mean a decrease in farmville.
I'm not playing Vanguard quite simply for the same reason I'm not playing a lot of MMOs: I can't get my friends to play them. But I'm not an EQ fan, I'm a UO/SWG fan. Are there any games out there that fit those descriptions?
There's something you have to understand about this discussion. When people are talking about oldschool games, they're noticing a trend away from niche and towards mainstream. Away from engrossing and towards casual. Nobody is claiming that all of the "oldschool" fans are on the same page about specific game they'd like to play, but they're on the same page about the genre going downhill. And yes, a shift towards casual means going downhill.
So when you say we need to get our ducks in a row and unite and figure out what game we want and show developers that we want it, you're totally missing the point. That's not people asking for a specific game, that's people showing their contempt for the current direction.
However, if you ask a lot of oldschool advocates what they want, they'd talk about sandbox elements, creating a virtual world with more of a focus on community, etc. And by the way, you see a lot of games coming out that promise these things and more. Why do we see these sandbox games in production if not because of all of us on these and other forums talking about it nonstop?
In this thread on our forums:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/397849
The OP purported to have a design for an 'old school' game. They also purported to have something like $2M, and had taken it upon themselves to approach a developer (Petroglyph) to develop the game. Now, obviously, there's no way to know if they really even had a game design, or $2M to spend on the game, but the general idea of what it actually takes is there. Seventy pages of design, which still needed additional work, lots and lots of money and an experienced developer willing to do the job.
1. A Design or Definition for an 'Old School' Game: It can't be the definition, because there are some opposing viewpoints on what is the 'old school' game. The lines could be drawn between UO and EQ, but it's been a lot of years since those games released, and a lot of time to refine what those games mean. The design or definition needs to be fairly complete.
2. Money. Lots and Lots of Money: Unless a developer has decided to spend lots and lots of money themselves on a game that they want to make, no matter what kind of market exists for it or not, somebody has to provide the money it costs to develop a game.
3. A Developer, Preferably Experienced: An amateur programmer and an amateur graphic artist are not going to make an MMORPG. It may be possible to make other kinds of games, or mods for other kinds of games, but an MMORPG crosses into many development areas, and a the experience needed to successfully develop one needs to be both wide, and deep. I'm not talking about the ideas of the game, I'm talking about the mechanical execution.
Now, these three things aren't just necessary for an 'old school' game, they are necessary for any MMORPG. The real question isn't, "What does it take", the real question is, "Why hasn't anyone done it yet?" It's that there is a lack in one or more of "Design", "Money" or "Developer" resources. The solution is to bring together those three things, because that's how all video games get made, not just 'old school' MMORPGs.
**
Not specifically the topic of this particular post, but something else to consider is that for developers to spontaneously decide to develop a particular kind of game, they have to have some desire to do so. This discussion has gone along for awhile, and it seems like the scenario is implied to be a bunch of developers want to make 'old school' games, but don't because they don't believe the market is there. Even if we assume that the old school market is viable, it doesn't seem likely that the population distribution for developers would be all that different from the general population of gamers. If 'old school' gamers are a minority, then developers who are also 'old school' gamers would also be in the minority. If one of the absolute necessities for a game to get developed is a developer willing to do it, and there are fewer 'old school' MMORPG developers than other kinds of game developers, then the odds that a developer will spontaneously decide to make an 'old school' MMORPG is less than other types of games.
Meh. Just something to think about. This post isn't a response to anything in particular, just something I've been thinking about while playing video games. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I'm not sure where on earth you're getting "a few dozen." But anywhere I see MMOs discussed there seems to be a stark contrast between the types of people: newschool and oldschool.
The home entertainment analogy isn't great because that's really not so much somebody preferring one product over another, it's simply an evolution in the same market. It's also unobjectionable and not really a preference thing... not many people would turn down better quality video or the ability to watch something in their own home. It's also largely based on technology. Obviously innovations in technology are expedited when there's a demand for them, but it's hard to say if that breakthrough was because people demanded it or if because it was now simply possible and it was something always just wanted because.... why wouldn't you want it?
Also, I know that it's on both sides. If you'll recall, the other guys are the ones saying it's MY responsibility alone to make myself known. I'm saying no, it's also their responsibility to notice me. If it weren't, why would they be professionals? I've also pointed out that I have made myself known, a lot of people have. Why else are there a lot of sandbox games on the horizon? The Repopulation is touted as a mix of SWG and Shadowbane.... add UO to that list and it would probably be my perfect game. It may be anyway, depending on how the "hardcore" server plays out.
Here's the thing, you guys are arguing from a convenient postion. You're simply assuming that we haven't made our voice heard. Our point is that our voice has been heard, but the genre is slow to react because of the huge focus on themeparks for the past ten years. But as you point out there are other games, such as Camelot Unchained, that are looking to fill that role.... so obviously that role exists, or at least people with the capability to make a game believes that it exists. Why do you assume we haven't done what we needed to while all a lot of sandbox/oldschool games are being produced?
Well If I had to guess I would say that a lot of developers' pure ideas for games would be games that oldschool/sandbox players would prefer, but publishers force their hands quite a bit.
Also I will point out that it's probably not accurate to say that since the oldschool playerbase is a certain % of the overall playerbase that oldschool developers make up the same % of overall developers. For instance, I'd say that on a spectrum of inexperienced to experienced, the oldschool/sandbox players probably tend to fall on more of the experienced end than newschool/themepark players would. If that's the case, it would seem that developers, who are typically far more experienced in the genre than the average player, would probably have more of a skew towards oldschool tendencies. Also it just seems like you're more likely to have an oldschool developer/programmer/whatever working on a team for a themepark than vice versa. Not sure about that last one though.
Its not that developers don't want to make old school, hardcore sandbox MMO's, its that publishers don't have faith in it.
If the publishers don't have faith in it, developers don't have the money and resources to create such an MMO. The ones who really want to make sandbox MMO's are resorting to crowdfunding now:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/forgedchaos/trials-of-ascension-a-truly-innovative-mmorpg
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/life-is-feudal
Looks like they are struggling with that as well. If there's any really wealthy MMO lover here at MMORPG.com..help one of those teams out.
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
I think SWG fans have done 10 times what you guys are asking for. They are known pretty much in every community that discusses games. There isn't a larger group with more demand that is more passionate out there.
What else could they possibly do?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
For sure. It feels like they're asking us to do the work of the dev/publisher, which is gather this information. We're supposed to voice our opinions, and we do... oh my gosh do we voice our opinions. The problem is when we do, we get labeled as having rose tinted glasses, being the "extremely vocal minority", etc.
"You make a lot of assumptions there, but the most important part is this "So why risk making an unfamiliar game to unknown market..." No business dies that. Ever. That isn't risk. It is stupidity. There is a huge difference between building for an identifiable small/fringe audience and building based on hopes that such an audience exists.
It doesn't make a difference how "bold" a developer is. Without data on what the group wants and how big the group is, even the most adventurous of money-wasting developers isn't going to touch it with a ten-foot pole.
For example, the fans of DAoC-style gameplay were identifiable. They existed in numbers on the VNBoards for years, and their presence is obvious in almost every PVP MMO that has come out since, often in the same guilds that they started back in DAoC. It was very clear that there was a possible demand for something like CU. The Kickstarter wasn't the test to see if there was interest, it was the proof of the interest for investors and other industry sources. The research was done long before the KS ever happened. Had the research shown little interest, they never would have bothered with the KS campaign, if for no other reason than a dismal public crowdsourcing would be damaging to the brand. "
That's not true because many business start with this is good and I think the world will like it. There are no predictions that are 100% or likely or we wouldn't have faliures nor sleeper hits. Many businesses are started by every day people not people in suits polling and quantifying every piece of information. Again, there are people who are bold who make the improbable a hit.
DAoC seems to me to be more about developers of the same game going on to try to recreate the game to the same audience because the core DAoC was changed. DAoC wasn't never even a huge game in the first place but the developers are the brain childs behind the first now they're doing it again. Of course there are interest. From my view there are just as much interest and guilds still alive 16 years later and they're not making the next UO and it simply hasn't happened, I've seen interest in many types of games on like EQ or AC or SWG with people remaking the game through emulation. I've played tons of UO emulated games with rather large population for private servers. Still haven't seen a new UO type game.
Its simply not realistic. As much as people want to deny the fact is that the WoW factor has skewered what people are willing to risk in the MMO. It's not about a viable market demand its about the potential vs. risk. A game made in WoW's image has the potential for 12+ million subscribers while EQ or SWG or UO pretty much was the peak of old school games at 500-250k. I think the type of games being made speaks for itself.
Say you have 5 million player who are into "Old School Games" and you break them down to those will subscribe into any of the different type of MMORPGs as 500-300k if its good. Why risk learning a new type of game audience that's going to max out in the hundreds of thousands than throw a net at likely 20 million who you might spike at 800k and hold down a steady 200k through P2P with a steady influx of new and old spending on your game once it goes F2P?
Forget date just look at the reality of what's been made. Since 2004 there has been almost 0 game not made WoW's image which speaks volumes. Other types of MMORPG are being forced largely to be made by indie, players themselves and developers recreating their old games.
Not really.
Uh yes, it was. Until FF11 it was. It even beat SWG for a while.
Bump.
I understand you believe that's how it happens. I am telling you from practice and experience that is simply not how a business, even one created by the "bold", is started.
VR, "build it and they will come" is a line in a movie about ghost baseball players in a cornfield. It's not how any business - EvilCorpCo or hip wide-eyed indie - works. No one starts a business without even the most basic of business plans or business strategies, and there is no way to create either if you don't know anything about your target audience, especially if you have no idea what the size of it is.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
In this day and age, a publisher isn't really necessary for most MMOs, especially a niche one.
That's immaterial, though, as no one is putting blind faith in publishers. However it's a pretty damn good bet that they have done a lot deeper research and have far more reliable numbers at their disposal than those who are here waggling fingers at them. Right?
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
Let them try another one then. That's how you build a brand.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
This is true, but the MMO market seems to be the most unpredictable market out there. Games like EVE were proclaimed DOA while the SWTOR's of the world garnered miraculous ratings out of the gate. Look at where they are now.
Numbers are great. I really believe that. But I also believe the MMO market has changed so much in just 10-12 years that trying to pick a winner is impossible. We went from 500k subs being considered awesome to WoW taking the crown at 12-ish million subs to F2P saturating the market and greatly changing the numbers game since a "paying customer" is no longer the only type of customer you have. I would say it gets a lot more challenging to predict success when you have different tiers of customers paying different dollar amounts in a variety of countries.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
But if you have the numbers, the party is almost over. At some point a risk will have to be taken.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
This is really more simple than it seems, based on countless talks and interviews with developers.
There are many markets that are untapped and currently viable. Including MMO's. The problem isn't that there isn't profit to be made with creating and old-school MMO. The problem isn't that devleopers don't want to make the game - because they do. The problem is that the Publishers have been consolidated over the last 10 years to just a handful of huge companies and those companies don't want to get out of bed for any potential game that isn't a guaranteed 10 million copies sold.
All that's required to make an old-school MMO viable at this point is a crowd-funding campaign. I'm sure something is being put together by a studio somewhere. And if not, whoever picks up on this and gets there first is going to reap the rewards. Possibly being set up for life, like Blizzard.
Listen to Chris Roberts talk about this: The Last 10 Years in Video Games