That is actually inherently false. The walking dead first season was only a handful of episodes and the budget was kept as tiny as possible. The entire point of that season was a test to see if there was a market for it. It wasn't that the market was found and then the show made.
That is how game companies used to work. They used to try something new and see if people liked it. If they did they built on it, if not they tried something else new. Over time they "refined" their approach to new products and that approach is 100% market research which is done on people currently enjoying a game. Therefore new markets will never be tapped outside of the rare moment when something like Minecraft gets done. How many major companies were approaching a minecraft style game? None. One guy did it on his own, sold it for cheap at first as a passion project and it went viral. Now look how many big companies are trying to jump into the voxel world. That guy didn't make minecraft because he went out and found an audience and then made the game. He made it because he thought it might be cool and wanted to see how it would work out.
No large company does that anymore. They are massively risk adverse and refuse to step out of their comfort zones. They will only go off of a "proven formula" which is actually a terrible approach because that "proven formula" is flooded with too many products already.
I also literally don't go around blabbing about things I like. I simply do them. I enjoy playing chess. I literally talk to no one about how I like playing chess. I simply hop on some internet sites and play a chess game. I don't talk with people about how I like drawing. I just draw. You clearly like to discuss things. There is nothing at all wrong with that. The only thing wrong is anytime a person draws a conclusion of all mankind because of how they approach things. People who use facebook tend to think everyone loves over-sharing and "liking" everything. It blows their mind to try and point out that there are also millions and millions of people who absolutely despise such a thing and prefer to be private.
Don't deny the existence of millions of gamers who don't go everywhere discussing what they want in a game simply because you and people you know like to do so.
The Walking Dead had many fans before it was ever a television show. My friends and I have been reading the comics for years. TWD had plenty of indicators that it was worth a shot.
Having fans of a graphic novel in no way equals that a show will work. The whole point of a limited production test season is to see if there is an audience. When a studio believes their research shows that an audience does in fact exist, they invest in a full 20+ or at least 13 episodes.
That tells me that you are discussing things you do not understand. The Walking Dead as a TV show went against the known formulas for modern TV. That is why no major network went after it despite the graphic novels having success. That is also why when someone at AMC got enough interest in it, the network would only allow a tiny budget and a very limited first season as a test to see if it would work. It wasn't that they said "Hey people like these novels, clearly this will work on TV let's do this!!"
You also took an entire post that blew away your whole argument of "Everyone spends time talking about their opinions and companies look through all that to find markets" (none of which is correct) and boiled it down to "Me an my friends like The Walking Dead graphic novels, therefore everyone did, therefore they didn't take a risk by making the show". In other words you said that you realize your early arguments are unfounded and incorrect, but weren't willing to say so and latched onto a final straw.
That is actually inherently false. The walking dead first season was only a handful of episodes and the budget was kept as tiny as possible. The entire point of that season was a test to see if there was a market for it. It wasn't that the market was found and then the show made.That is how game companies used to work. They used to try something new and see if people liked it. If they did they built on it, if not they tried something else new. Over time they "refined" their approach to new products and that approach is 100% market research which is done on people currently enjoying a game. Therefore new markets will never be tapped outside of the rare moment when something like Minecraft gets done. How many major companies were approaching a minecraft style game? None. One guy did it on his own, sold it for cheap at first as a passion project and it went viral. Now look how many big companies are trying to jump into the voxel world. That guy didn't make minecraft because he went out and found an audience and then made the game. He made it because he thought it might be cool and wanted to see how it would work out.No large company does that anymore. They are massively risk adverse and refuse to step out of their comfort zones. They will only go off of a "proven formula" which is actually a terrible approach because that "proven formula" is flooded with too many products already.I also literally don't go around blabbing about things I like. I simply do them. I enjoy playing chess. I literally talk to no one about how I like playing chess. I simply hop on some internet sites and play a chess game. I don't talk with people about how I like drawing. I just draw. You clearly like to discuss things. There is nothing at all wrong with that. The only thing wrong is anytime a person draws a conclusion of all mankind because of how they approach things. People who use facebook tend to think everyone loves over-sharing and "liking" everything. It blows their mind to try and point out that there are also millions and millions of people who absolutely despise such a thing and prefer to be private.Don't deny the existence of millions of gamers who don't go everywhere discussing what they want in a game simply because you and people you know like to do so.
The Walking Dead had many fans before it was ever a television show. My friends and I have been reading the comics for years. TWD had plenty of indicators that it was worth a shot.
Having fans of a graphic novel in no way equals that a show will work. The whole point of a limited production test season is to see if there is an audience. When a studio believes their research shows that an audience does in fact exist, they invest in a full 20+ or at least 13 episodes.
That tells me that you are discussing things you do not understand. The Walking Dead as a TV show went against the known formulas for modern TV. That is why no major network went after it despite the graphic novels having success. That is also why when someone at AMC got enough interest in it, the network would only allow a tiny budget and a very limited first season as a test to see if it would work. It wasn't that they said "Hey people like these novels, clearly this will work on TV let's do this!!"
You also took an entire post that blew away your whole argument of "Everyone spends time talking about their opinions and companies look through all that to find markets" (none of which is correct) and boiled it down to "Me an my friends like The Walking Dead graphic novels, therefore everyone did, therefore they didn't take a risk by making the show". In other words you said that you realize your early arguments are unfounded and incorrect, but weren't willing to say so and latched onto a final straw.
It's more of an indicator that there would be people watching the television show than there are indicators that people would be willing to play an "old school" game. It's more than nothing.
There were definitely fans of the IP, and they were a quantifiable number that could be based on the sales of the comics. After market sales of TWD even before the television series showed a substantial increase in value over the cover price. The subject matter generated interest, and it could easily be seen that the subject matter generated interest.
**
The point is, it doesn't matter if a market exists or not. It only matters if the market can be shown to exist in some way. There has to be more than nothing.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
That is actually inherently false. The walking dead first season was only a handful of episodes and the budget was kept as tiny as possible. The entire point of that season was a test to see if there was a market for it. It wasn't that the market was found and then the show made.That is how game companies used to work. They used to try something new and see if people liked it. If they did they built on it, if not they tried something else new. Over time they "refined" their approach to new products and that approach is 100% market research which is done on people currently enjoying a game. Therefore new markets will never be tapped outside of the rare moment when something like Minecraft gets done. How many major companies were approaching a minecraft style game? None. One guy did it on his own, sold it for cheap at first as a passion project and it went viral. Now look how many big companies are trying to jump into the voxel world. That guy didn't make minecraft because he went out and found an audience and then made the game. He made it because he thought it might be cool and wanted to see how it would work out.No large company does that anymore. They are massively risk adverse and refuse to step out of their comfort zones. They will only go off of a "proven formula" which is actually a terrible approach because that "proven formula" is flooded with too many products already.I also literally don't go around blabbing about things I like. I simply do them. I enjoy playing chess. I literally talk to no one about how I like playing chess. I simply hop on some internet sites and play a chess game. I don't talk with people about how I like drawing. I just draw. You clearly like to discuss things. There is nothing at all wrong with that. The only thing wrong is anytime a person draws a conclusion of all mankind because of how they approach things. People who use facebook tend to think everyone loves over-sharing and "liking" everything. It blows their mind to try and point out that there are also millions and millions of people who absolutely despise such a thing and prefer to be private.Don't deny the existence of millions of gamers who don't go everywhere discussing what they want in a game simply because you and people you know like to do so.
The Walking Dead had many fans before it was ever a television show. My friends and I have been reading the comics for years. TWD had plenty of indicators that it was worth a shot.
Having fans of a graphic novel in no way equals that a show will work. The whole point of a limited production test season is to see if there is an audience. When a studio believes their research shows that an audience does in fact exist, they invest in a full 20+ or at least 13 episodes.
That tells me that you are discussing things you do not understand. The Walking Dead as a TV show went against the known formulas for modern TV. That is why no major network went after it despite the graphic novels having success. That is also why when someone at AMC got enough interest in it, the network would only allow a tiny budget and a very limited first season as a test to see if it would work. It wasn't that they said "Hey people like these novels, clearly this will work on TV let's do this!!"
You also took an entire post that blew away your whole argument of "Everyone spends time talking about their opinions and companies look through all that to find markets" (none of which is correct) and boiled it down to "Me an my friends like The Walking Dead graphic novels, therefore everyone did, therefore they didn't take a risk by making the show". In other words you said that you realize your early arguments are unfounded and incorrect, but weren't willing to say so and latched onto a final straw.
It's more of an indicator that there would be people watching the television show than there are indicators that people would be willing to play an "old school" game. It's more than nothing.
There were definitely fans of the IP, and they were a quantifiable number that could be based on the sales of the comics. After market sales of TWD even before the television series showed a substantial increase in value over the cover price. The subject matter generated interest, and it could easily be seen that the subject matter generated interest.
You and friends read The Walking Dead and therefore people might watch the show (they needed more people to watch the show than read the comics, but we'll ignore that part for now) so let's go with that premise.
Combined millions of people played old school MMOs. Most of the old school MMOs are still running even 14+ years later. Where as far more games have opened and closed since then. So therefore, by your logic, there is an interest and therefore a company has reason to believe they could take the risk.
Good post OP, I guess us veteran MMO players really are waiting for the return of risk vs reward and challenge. I don't mind playing games with younger players, but when you have to dumb down combat systems and dungeons, quests, etc. It really doesn't do a game justice in this guy's humble opinion.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV Have played: You name it If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
We're here. We're just more mature and patient. We aren't obnoxious. We realize that the game we want isn't going to pop up out of thin air but in time, devs will see us.
Originally posted by jonesing22 Originally posted by GaendricThe problem is people don't want an oldschool MMO.They want an oldschool MMO but with modern AAA polish, which ofcurse means a full AAA size budget.Niche game + AAA budget is not something investors love.I would love to see a big dev take on the challenge, the proof is in the pudding afterall. But I can totally understand why they don't.
This is too true, unfortunately. It's going to be risk vs reward for the devs and publishers as far as money and they don't like risk.
Trove looks like a niche game that Trion is working on. It's not like all developers are going to take a pass on developing a small game. I think the biggest problem for all MMORPGs is the ridiculous budget, disciplines and people it takes to make them. Even a cheap MMORPG is an expensive {pick any other kind of game}.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by jonesing22 We're here. We're just more mature and patient. We aren't obnoxious. We realize that the game we want isn't going to pop up out of thin air but in time, devs will see us.
How?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Forgrimm These threads are starting to become redundant. And as lizardbones pointed out, there isn't a big enough demand for that type of game. Those are niche games. And as businesses, it makes little sense for game developers to invest in them, since a small subscriber base = small profits. If the demand was really there, then the supply would emerge to match that demand. But the fact is that the demand just isn't there on a large enough scale to make it worth it.
I suppose your an avid Farmville supporter then?
The OP posted what I see as a rather "Must have" list for any MMO that I would wish to play for any length of time. What we seem to get in abundance these days is something thats been cooked in a microwave for 10 mintues and thrown out for general consumption to the masses, mainly because the masses have been fed the same old bare bones games for the past few years, and so we see new no name companies with no real gaming background jump on the bandwagon to mass produce yet more dross.
So because I pointed out the fact that "hardcore" mmo's are a niche market, that makes me a farmville supporter? Makes sense...not. I played the mmo's that the OP is talking about, and I played them when they were current. They were great for their time because that was all we had in the genre. But the genre has evolved. And although there are still people who long for that early mmo style of game-play, those people are clearly in the minority. And since it isn't financially viable for a company to cater to a small minority, we don't have games like that being released anymore. And any time a new game tries to deviate from the new WoW-ified mmo formula, the game fails miserably, because again, only a small group of people want that old school play-style. Additionally, those old school games like EQ1 and Asheron's Call are still running. People who want that type of game are more than welcome to play them again.
Originally posted by Forgrimm These threads are starting to become redundant. And as lizardbones pointed out, there isn't a big enough demand for that type of game. Those are niche games. And as businesses, it makes little sense for game developers to invest in them, since a small subscriber base = small profits. If the demand was really there, then the supply would emerge to match that demand. But the fact is that the demand just isn't there on a large enough scale to make it worth it.
I suppose your an avid Farmville supporter then?
The OP posted what I see as a rather "Must have" list for any MMO that I would wish to play for any length of time. What we seem to get in abundance these days is something thats been cooked in a microwave for 10 mintues and thrown out for general consumption to the masses, mainly because the masses have been fed the same old bare bones games for the past few years, and so we see new no name companies with no real gaming background jump on the bandwagon to mass produce yet more dross.
So because I pointed out the fact that "hardcore" mmo's are a niche market, that makes me a farmville supporter? Makes sense...not. I played the mmo's that the OP is talking about, and I played them when they were current. They were great for their time because that was all we had in the genre. But the genre has evolved. And although there are still people who long for that early mmo style of game-play, those people are clearly in the minority. And since it isn't financially viable for a company to cater to a small minority, we don't have games like that being released anymore. And any time a new game tries to deviate from the new WoW-ified mmo formula, the game fails miserably, because again, only a small group of people want that old school play-style. Additionally, those old school games like EQ1 and Asheron's Call are still running. People who want that type of game are more than welcome to play them again.
You're last sentences was the point of this post for me. Those game are STILL running and people are playing them. Those games are still running because of what? Not because people leave after the first two months because they have nothing left to do.The vocal minority of those games are on the forums asking for a new AAA title of the same type.
The point is that there would be indicators. People talk about things they like. They do it for fountain pens, television shows, 70s scifi television shows and nearly anything else that people find enjoyable. It does not seem likely that the behavior of people in general changes so dramatically just because the thing they like is a certain style of MMORPG.
Those television shows got made because there was some indication that it was worth spending the money on them. There was not a black hole of information where the subject matter of the television shows existed, invisible to everyone except the people who might like that particular bit of subject matter.
You might be missing the point. OP is not saying that there is a vast silent market for this type game, but a small (compared to casual market) group (prob in million or so range, that would be worth the attempt to make a game for based on greater loyalty to stay with game and not hop around, would be willing to pay sub, willing to take content slower (not cap lev in 2 days, etc. This group has been overlooked for ten years or more so and have become more silent (companies stopped listening, no games catered to them, etc.), but that doesn't mean they don't exist, just that companies don't want to try for smaller, but steady gamers opposed to going for the WoW numbers home run. And i do see threads asking for this type of game quite often, so some are vocal.
And look at the more hardcore pvpers. Though small in numbers they are very vocal, yet still ignored over the bigger crowd of casuals.
There aren't. If there were, they would be visible in some way.
There is a large audience of people interested in fountain pens. Fountain pens. How can this be true? Because there are websites, discussion forums, Twitter posts, Tumblr blogs, plain old blogs with thousands of page views and Facebook pages dedicated to fountain pens.
The point is that people are generally not that quiet about what they like and what they want. The internet just makes it that much easier to find them.
There is not a large, completely invisible audience out there. There might be a tiny, completely invisible audience, but not a large one.
There are millions of people who don't bother telling the entire world what they want. I for example never use a game's (or product's) forum. If I enjoy the game, I keep paying/playing it. When they start making changes I don't like I just leave.
And that's one of the measures the devs use. It's one of the ways that people speak up about what they want and don't want.
Another is what you did in that game while you were there. Where you traveled to, who you spoke with, the content you did most, the content you avoided, the items you hoarded, the stuff you simply deleted right after you received it, etc.
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 last sentences was the point of this post for me. Those game are STILL running and people are playing them. Those games are still running because of what? Not because people leave after the first two months because they have nothing left to do.The vocal minority of those games are on the forums asking for a new AAA title of the same type.
Because those games were developed many years ago and they now only require minor operational costs to keep them running, which means that they can continue to exist even with a small player-base and still remain at least somewhat profitable. However, the amount of money required to build a new game from the ground up is significant. There's a huge difference between keeping a 14 year old game running with only a few thousand people playing, and developing an entire new game, knowing that you will probably only get a few thousand people to play it.
And look at the more hardcore pvpers. Though small in numbers they are very vocal, yet still ignored over the bigger crowd of casuals.
For a couple years they were a group that was focused on by the indie devs - APB, CrimeCraft, Xsyon, Darkfall, Mortal Online, Perpetuum, Black Prophecy - primarily because a 'hardcore' PVP game that is solely PVP just doesn't have much of an audience to draw from.
And to get a new dev or a publisher-backed dev to figure out how DAoC or EVE works? Will never happen.
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
The point he was making is that many adults are too busy for such things, so of you are not careful the statistics are skewed by those that do have more time on their hands. Fact is people have been gaming since the 80's and humans seek progressively more sophisticated and deep experiences as they go- but that is not what is getting delivered. There is something skewing away....
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by Bladestrom Few thousand forgrim? You should calculate exactly how many players there are over the age of 25, it's a he'll of a lot more than a few million.
Why would I calculate all mmo players over the age of 25? Those numbers are irrelevant to the discussion. I'm calculating the small number of gamers, regardless of age, who would still want to play an old-school style of mmo. That's what a game developer would be looking at if they were considering making that type of game now.
Originally posted by ropenice Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by SnarlingWolfOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by SnarlingWolf
The point is that there would be indicators. People talk about things they like. They do it for fountain pens, television shows, 70s scifi television shows and nearly anything else that people find enjoyable. It does not seem likely that the behavior of people in general changes so dramatically just because the thing they like is a certain style of MMORPG. Those television shows got made because there was some indication that it was worth spending the money on them. There was not a black hole of information where the subject matter of the television shows existed, invisible to everyone except the people who might like that particular bit of subject matter. You might be missing the point. OP is not saying that there is a vast silent market for this type game, but a small (compared to casual market) group (prob in million or so range, that would be worth the attempt to make a game for based on greater loyalty to stay with game and not hop around, would be willing to pay sub, willing to take content slower (not cap lev in 2 days, etc. This group has been overlooked for ten years or more so and have become more silent (companies stopped listening, no games catered to them, etc.), but that doesn't mean they don't exist, just that companies don't want to try for smaller, but steady gamers opposed to going for the WoW numbers home run. And i do see threads asking for this type of game quite often, so some are vocal.
And look at the more hardcore pvpers. Though small in numbers they are very vocal, yet still ignored over the bigger crowd of casuals.
The OP depends on assumptions that haven't been shown to be true. One is that an audience exists in sufficient quantities to make the project worthwhile. Ten or twenty people on a single website does not demonstrate an audience large enough to support an MMORPG, unless it's the size of Mortal Online and nobody really wants that.
Second is the assumption that those players would all be loyal. EQ players were really loyal, until there was a better alternative. The same could be said of UO players and SWG players. It's easy for players to be loyal when there is no better alternative, but when there is, players are going to check it out. If a developer makes an old school or mature game right now, and it's successful, someone else will develop a better, or at least newer game that's similar, and the players will check it out. They'll do this because they are human.
Third is that there is just one kind of 'old school' game and one kind of 'old school' market. There isn't. UO, DAoC and EQ are very different games, and they are all 'old school'. There are a few other games that get lumped into that category as well, but they are their own games with their own audiences. If there are one million people 'old school' gamers, that doesn't mean there are one million 'EQ brand of old school' gamers. If there are a million 'old school' gamers, there can't be a million 'EQ brand of old school' gamers.
I don't doubt there are people who would play a revamped EQ, UO or DAoC. What I disagree with is the idea that people who aren't even involved in the game industry can assign a number (one million) to a group of people that show no indicators that they exist in any large numbers.
If there aren't any developers making a particular type of game, the reasons are going to be financial. Either the next best alternative is so attractive, developers who want to make a particular type of game don't or the concept itself won't pull in enough money to be viable, much less profitable. In this regard it doesn't matter if the audience is there or not, whether they are social or not. People who have access to information we do not have, and people who are much better at analyzing that information than we are have determined that they won't be building those games. It is possible that there is an untapped audience, and that any developer who taps it is going to get wealthy, but that is the least likely scenario.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Yeah, I know a lot of people that are 'waiting' for a lot of what the OP described, some of it is off, as kids always play about anything....But yeah their is easily enough people imo to make a old school mmo successful, if done right. So I do not buy the argument that their isn't enough.
I do buy the argument that unless a well known person in the industry or someone with money decides to make it, it may not get made. Their is a reason mmos have become almost lobby games now, most decisions are made to appeal to the masses, and leave the traditional mmo model behind. It is less of a gamble to target probably 250 - 500 million people, verse 5-10 million people.
Things do change though, people citing polls and experts not long ago were running their mouths that no one was going to spend money making sandbox type games....Now that is happening. Mark Jacobs project, even though it is more limited in scope, if successful, may influence someone to take a risk. Indie stuff is made all the time, but I am mainly talking AAA in this post.
Originally posted by Bladestrom The point he was making is that many adults are too busy for such things, so of you are not careful the statistics are skewed by those that do have more time on their hands. Fact is people have been gaming since the 80's and humans seek progressively more sophisticated and deep experiences as they go- but that is not what is getting delivered. There is something skewing away....
But that's not reality. As people get older, they tend to become more and more casual in their gaming because they don't have the time to spend on deep, sophisticated gaming. Kids who have time to spend 12-16 hours a day gaming get jobs, get married and find that they don't have remotely that much time. They might have time for 2 hours a day gaming. Lots of us, myself included, maybe get 2 hours a week gaming. Gaming is not that important and if you think it is, then you're neither mature nor sophisticated.
Originally posted by Bladestrom Few thousand forgrim? You should calculate exactly how many players there are over the age of 25, it's a he'll of a lot more than a few million.
Why would I calculate all mmo players over the age of 25? Those numbers are irrelevant to the discussion. I'm calculating the small number of gamers, regardless of age, who would still want to play an old-school style of mmo. That's what a game developer would be looking at if they were considering making that type of game now.
And that's effectively nobody. The number of people who want to play an old-school game is considerably less than 1% of the total MMO marketplace. Most people who used to play old-school MMOs have either stopped playing entirely or have simply changed their minds and like the way modern MMOs play. Game developers know this, that's why you see no AAA old-school games.
Originally posted by Bladestrom The point he was making is that many adults are too busy for such things, so of you are not careful the statistics are skewed by those that do have more time on their hands. Fact is people have been gaming since the 80's and humans seek progressively more sophisticated and deep experiences as they go- but that is not what is getting delivered. There is something skewing away....
But that's not reality. As people get older, they tend to become more and more casual in their gaming because they don't have the time to spend on deep, sophisticated gaming. Kids who have time to spend 12-16 hours a day gaming get jobs, get married and find that they don't have remotely that much time. They might have time for 2 hours a day gaming. Lots of us, myself included, maybe get 2 hours a week gaming. Gaming is not that important and if you think it is, then you're neither mature nor sophisticated.
Originally posted by Bladestrom Few thousand forgrim? You should calculate exactly how many players there are over the age of 25, it's a he'll of a lot more than a few million.
Why would I calculate all mmo players over the age of 25? Those numbers are irrelevant to the discussion. I'm calculating the small number of gamers, regardless of age, who would still want to play an old-school style of mmo. That's what a game developer would be looking at if they were considering making that type of game now.
And that's effectively nobody. The number of people who want to play an old-school game is considerably less than 1% of the total MMO marketplace. Most people who used to play old-school MMOs have either stopped playing entirely or have simply changed their minds and like the way modern MMOs play. Game developers know this, that's why you see no AAA old-school games.
Yeah, this same research proved that no one would make a AAA Sandbox ever again also. Didn't you get the memo?
There aren't. If there were, they would be visible in some way.
There is a large audience of people interested in fountain pens. Fountain pens. How can this be true? Because there are websites, discussion forums, Twitter posts, Tumblr blogs, plain old blogs with thousands of page views and Facebook pages dedicated to fountain pens.
The point is that people are generally not that quiet about what they like and what they want. The internet just makes it that much easier to find them.
There is not a large, completely invisible audience out there. There might be a tiny, completely invisible audience, but not a large one.
There are millions of people who don't bother telling the entire world what they want. I for example never use a game's (or product's) forum. If I enjoy the game, I keep paying/playing it. When they start making changes I don't like I just leave.
And that's one of the measures the devs use. It's one of the ways that people speak up about what they want and don't want.
Another is what you did in that game while you were there. Where you traveled to, who you spoke with, the content you did most, the content you avoided, the items you hoarded, the stuff you simply deleted right after you received it, etc.
I think you missed my several times of saying "And that is the massive flaw in market data" and all my references to how a show like Walking Dead, which defied all market research has done so extremely well. The problem is that the data comes from those who are currently involved in games which means it completely ignores all of those who aren't involved and therefore doesn't make a game to get those people back involved.
Me leaving doesn't tell them what it is I left over. Did I get burned out? Did a bug get in my way? Did the community annoy me to much? Did I run out of things to do? Did I hate my class change? Did I hate that new feature? Did I hate content adjustments? All they know is I quit and can wrongfully plug that data point into any given place they think it fits (I've never filled out an exit survey since when I quit I don't come back so I genuinely don't care if they address my issues later).
Metrics have long been known to have weaknesses and flaws. Developers once pointed out how "Despite people saying they hate kill tasks our metrics show that they are the most completed part of content which is why we continue to add them". They are the most completed not because players enjoy them, but because it is the biggest bang for your time. Players do them to level faster and to get the rewards, however doing them creates boredom and makes them angry. When someone looks at metrics to see what people are spending their time doing and then increase that, it doesn't mean they just improved the experience or gave players more of what they actually want, they may have in fact made a problem worse.
That is my overall point. The entertainment industry as a whole has locked itself down to this narrow view of building off of metrics and data. It has completed destroyed the creative process by making a repeating pattern as new product after new product copies the same data to create the same thing.
Every once in a while someone creatively tries something new (almost always an indie) and you get something like a Minecraft or a LoL which a huge audience starts to enjoy. Then all the big companies update their formulas with this new research data (because again they are only collecting data from those who are playing the games and so they only get this new data when someone creatively does something to bring in a new group of players who can now be data mined) and then flood the market with clones because that is what their data tells them is right. It creates mundane mediocrity and that is all metrics create in the entertainment world.
Comments
Having fans of a graphic novel in no way equals that a show will work. The whole point of a limited production test season is to see if there is an audience. When a studio believes their research shows that an audience does in fact exist, they invest in a full 20+ or at least 13 episodes.
That tells me that you are discussing things you do not understand. The Walking Dead as a TV show went against the known formulas for modern TV. That is why no major network went after it despite the graphic novels having success. That is also why when someone at AMC got enough interest in it, the network would only allow a tiny budget and a very limited first season as a test to see if it would work. It wasn't that they said "Hey people like these novels, clearly this will work on TV let's do this!!"
You also took an entire post that blew away your whole argument of "Everyone spends time talking about their opinions and companies look through all that to find markets" (none of which is correct) and boiled it down to "Me an my friends like The Walking Dead graphic novels, therefore everyone did, therefore they didn't take a risk by making the show". In other words you said that you realize your early arguments are unfounded and incorrect, but weren't willing to say so and latched onto a final straw.
It's more of an indicator that there would be people watching the television show than there are indicators that people would be willing to play an "old school" game. It's more than nothing.
There were definitely fans of the IP, and they were a quantifiable number that could be based on the sales of the comics. After market sales of TWD even before the television series showed a substantial increase in value over the cover price. The subject matter generated interest, and it could easily be seen that the subject matter generated interest.
**
The point is, it doesn't matter if a market exists or not. It only matters if the market can be shown to exist in some way. There has to be more than nothing.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You and friends read The Walking Dead and therefore people might watch the show (they needed more people to watch the show than read the comics, but we'll ignore that part for now) so let's go with that premise.
Combined millions of people played old school MMOs. Most of the old school MMOs are still running even 14+ years later. Where as far more games have opened and closed since then. So therefore, by your logic, there is an interest and therefore a company has reason to believe they could take the risk.
The problem is people don't want an oldschool MMO.
They want an oldschool MMO but with modern AAA polish, which ofcurse means a full AAA size budget.
Niche game + AAA budget is not something investors love.
I would love to see a big dev take on the challenge, the proof is in the pudding afterall. But I can totally understand why they don't.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV
Have played: You name it
If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
This is too true, unfortunately. It's going to be risk vs reward for the devs and publishers as far as money and they don't like risk.
Trove looks like a niche game that Trion is working on. It's not like all developers are going to take a pass on developing a small game. I think the biggest problem for all MMORPGs is the ridiculous budget, disciplines and people it takes to make them. Even a cheap MMORPG is an expensive {pick any other kind of game}.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
How?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
So because I pointed out the fact that "hardcore" mmo's are a niche market, that makes me a farmville supporter? Makes sense...not. I played the mmo's that the OP is talking about, and I played them when they were current. They were great for their time because that was all we had in the genre. But the genre has evolved. And although there are still people who long for that early mmo style of game-play, those people are clearly in the minority. And since it isn't financially viable for a company to cater to a small minority, we don't have games like that being released anymore. And any time a new game tries to deviate from the new WoW-ified mmo formula, the game fails miserably, because again, only a small group of people want that old school play-style. Additionally, those old school games like EQ1 and Asheron's Call are still running. People who want that type of game are more than welcome to play them again.
You're last sentences was the point of this post for me. Those game are STILL running and people are playing them. Those games are still running because of what? Not because people leave after the first two months because they have nothing left to do.The vocal minority of those games are on the forums asking for a new AAA title of the same type.
You might be missing the point. OP is not saying that there is a vast silent market for this type game, but a small (compared to casual market) group (prob in million or so range, that would be worth the attempt to make a game for based on greater loyalty to stay with game and not hop around, would be willing to pay sub, willing to take content slower (not cap lev in 2 days, etc. This group has been overlooked for ten years or more so and have become more silent (companies stopped listening, no games catered to them, etc.), but that doesn't mean they don't exist, just that companies don't want to try for smaller, but steady gamers opposed to going for the WoW numbers home run. And i do see threads asking for this type of game quite often, so some are vocal.
And look at the more hardcore pvpers. Though small in numbers they are very vocal, yet still ignored over the bigger crowd of casuals.
And that's one of the measures the devs use. It's one of the ways that people speak up about what they want and don't want.
Another is what you did in that game while you were there. Where you traveled to, who you spoke with, the content you did most, the content you avoided, the items you hoarded, the stuff you simply deleted right after you received it, etc.
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 those games were developed many years ago and they now only require minor operational costs to keep them running, which means that they can continue to exist even with a small player-base and still remain at least somewhat profitable. However, the amount of money required to build a new game from the ground up is significant. There's a huge difference between keeping a 14 year old game running with only a few thousand people playing, and developing an entire new game, knowing that you will probably only get a few thousand people to play it.
For a couple years they were a group that was focused on by the indie devs - APB, CrimeCraft, Xsyon, Darkfall, Mortal Online, Perpetuum, Black Prophecy - primarily because a 'hardcore' PVP game that is solely PVP just doesn't have much of an audience to draw from.
And to get a new dev or a publisher-backed dev to figure out how DAoC or EVE works? Will never happen.
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
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Why would I calculate all mmo players over the age of 25? Those numbers are irrelevant to the discussion. I'm calculating the small number of gamers, regardless of age, who would still want to play an old-school style of mmo. That's what a game developer would be looking at if they were considering making that type of game now.
The point is that there would be indicators. People talk about things they like. They do it for fountain pens, television shows, 70s scifi television shows and nearly anything else that people find enjoyable. It does not seem likely that the behavior of people in general changes so dramatically just because the thing they like is a certain style of MMORPG. Those television shows got made because there was some indication that it was worth spending the money on them. There was not a black hole of information where the subject matter of the television shows existed, invisible to everyone except the people who might like that particular bit of subject matter.
You might be missing the point. OP is not saying that there is a vast silent market for this type game, but a small (compared to casual market) group (prob in million or so range, that would be worth the attempt to make a game for based on greater loyalty to stay with game and not hop around, would be willing to pay sub, willing to take content slower (not cap lev in 2 days, etc. This group has been overlooked for ten years or more so and have become more silent (companies stopped listening, no games catered to them, etc.), but that doesn't mean they don't exist, just that companies don't want to try for smaller, but steady gamers opposed to going for the WoW numbers home run. And i do see threads asking for this type of game quite often, so some are vocal.
And look at the more hardcore pvpers. Though small in numbers they are very vocal, yet still ignored over the bigger crowd of casuals.
The OP depends on assumptions that haven't been shown to be true. One is that an audience exists in sufficient quantities to make the project worthwhile. Ten or twenty people on a single website does not demonstrate an audience large enough to support an MMORPG, unless it's the size of Mortal Online and nobody really wants that.
Second is the assumption that those players would all be loyal. EQ players were really loyal, until there was a better alternative. The same could be said of UO players and SWG players. It's easy for players to be loyal when there is no better alternative, but when there is, players are going to check it out. If a developer makes an old school or mature game right now, and it's successful, someone else will develop a better, or at least newer game that's similar, and the players will check it out. They'll do this because they are human.
Third is that there is just one kind of 'old school' game and one kind of 'old school' market. There isn't. UO, DAoC and EQ are very different games, and they are all 'old school'. There are a few other games that get lumped into that category as well, but they are their own games with their own audiences. If there are one million people 'old school' gamers, that doesn't mean there are one million 'EQ brand of old school' gamers. If there are a million 'old school' gamers, there can't be a million 'EQ brand of old school' gamers.
I don't doubt there are people who would play a revamped EQ, UO or DAoC. What I disagree with is the idea that people who aren't even involved in the game industry can assign a number (one million) to a group of people that show no indicators that they exist in any large numbers.
If there aren't any developers making a particular type of game, the reasons are going to be financial. Either the next best alternative is so attractive, developers who want to make a particular type of game don't or the concept itself won't pull in enough money to be viable, much less profitable. In this regard it doesn't matter if the audience is there or not, whether they are social or not. People who have access to information we do not have, and people who are much better at analyzing that information than we are have determined that they won't be building those games. It is possible that there is an untapped audience, and that any developer who taps it is going to get wealthy, but that is the least likely scenario.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Yeah, I know a lot of people that are 'waiting' for a lot of what the OP described, some of it is off, as kids always play about anything....But yeah their is easily enough people imo to make a old school mmo successful, if done right. So I do not buy the argument that their isn't enough.
I do buy the argument that unless a well known person in the industry or someone with money decides to make it, it may not get made. Their is a reason mmos have become almost lobby games now, most decisions are made to appeal to the masses, and leave the traditional mmo model behind. It is less of a gamble to target probably 250 - 500 million people, verse 5-10 million people.
Things do change though, people citing polls and experts not long ago were running their mouths that no one was going to spend money making sandbox type games....Now that is happening. Mark Jacobs project, even though it is more limited in scope, if successful, may influence someone to take a risk. Indie stuff is made all the time, but I am mainly talking AAA in this post.
But that's not reality. As people get older, they tend to become more and more casual in their gaming because they don't have the time to spend on deep, sophisticated gaming. Kids who have time to spend 12-16 hours a day gaming get jobs, get married and find that they don't have remotely that much time. They might have time for 2 hours a day gaming. Lots of us, myself included, maybe get 2 hours a week gaming. Gaming is not that important and if you think it is, then you're neither mature nor sophisticated.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
And that's effectively nobody. The number of people who want to play an old-school game is considerably less than 1% of the total MMO marketplace. Most people who used to play old-school MMOs have either stopped playing entirely or have simply changed their minds and like the way modern MMOs play. Game developers know this, that's why you see no AAA old-school games.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Nice meaningless jab there at the end.
Yeah, this same research proved that no one would make a AAA Sandbox ever again also. Didn't you get the memo?
I think you missed my several times of saying "And that is the massive flaw in market data" and all my references to how a show like Walking Dead, which defied all market research has done so extremely well. The problem is that the data comes from those who are currently involved in games which means it completely ignores all of those who aren't involved and therefore doesn't make a game to get those people back involved.
Me leaving doesn't tell them what it is I left over. Did I get burned out? Did a bug get in my way? Did the community annoy me to much? Did I run out of things to do? Did I hate my class change? Did I hate that new feature? Did I hate content adjustments? All they know is I quit and can wrongfully plug that data point into any given place they think it fits (I've never filled out an exit survey since when I quit I don't come back so I genuinely don't care if they address my issues later).
Metrics have long been known to have weaknesses and flaws. Developers once pointed out how "Despite people saying they hate kill tasks our metrics show that they are the most completed part of content which is why we continue to add them". They are the most completed not because players enjoy them, but because it is the biggest bang for your time. Players do them to level faster and to get the rewards, however doing them creates boredom and makes them angry. When someone looks at metrics to see what people are spending their time doing and then increase that, it doesn't mean they just improved the experience or gave players more of what they actually want, they may have in fact made a problem worse.
That is my overall point. The entertainment industry as a whole has locked itself down to this narrow view of building off of metrics and data. It has completed destroyed the creative process by making a repeating pattern as new product after new product copies the same data to create the same thing.
Every once in a while someone creatively tries something new (almost always an indie) and you get something like a Minecraft or a LoL which a huge audience starts to enjoy. Then all the big companies update their formulas with this new research data (because again they are only collecting data from those who are playing the games and so they only get this new data when someone creatively does something to bring in a new group of players who can now be data mined) and then flood the market with clones because that is what their data tells them is right. It creates mundane mediocrity and that is all metrics create in the entertainment world.