Originally posted by free2play People who play OW PvP games are the most mule headed, arrogant, stubborn, selfish, anarchistic people in gaming. It's like herding feral cats. Good luck getting a million of them to sign up for the same game.
doesnt that apply to anyone who likes to kill other players then verbally stomps on their faces after wining or losing? Because that seems to occur a lot more in instanced pvp where everyone is packed together like chickens with their heads cut off. That has nothing to do with open world. But i also think you could be less narrow minded.
Originally posted by DEAD.line The stupid generalizations against people who enjoy open world pvp are making my brain hurt.
It works both ways things like cowards,carebears and stupid AI fighting breeds stupid players so on and so forth.
True, but see my edited post. Generalizing all of us who enjoy owpvp for different reasons by calling us parasites and mules is pretty disrespectfull.
There's a-holes in every video game that will try to ruin your fun out of sick pleasure. Obviously, in uncontrolled owpvp they can have more control, but high level griefers that come to low level areas and kill low level mobs are also griefers.
I personally don't let a bunch of random internet people get to me. Just pointing out the complete irony of many posts in this thread. Meh, more popcorn for me. IQ dropping popcorn, but still popcorn.
Someone would have to be an utter buffoon, completely inept and have zero knowledge of MMOs to even try fielding the notion that there isn't a massive demand for open world pvp. This is like the simple minded people who try to say that there is no demand for sandbox when Minecraft has sold over 20 million copies on PC alone.
It's uninformed, uneducated, clueless drivel to state that there are not enough pvpers to sustain a single game when literally dozens have already been mentioned in this thread.
the simple mindedness is to assume the success of a lego-type building game is indication of demand for a sandbox MMO.
Are you trying to say there isn't a demand?
There is a big difference between "a demand" and the kind of demand being implied in this thread.
Also, this is an example of what I was talking about with the OP's lack of internal consistency. Presumably we're discussing PvP, but now it's all about sandboxes and I feel sure that there's going to be an "OW PvP = Sandbox" post or discussion.
Well let's talk numbers then. How about a million? Even half a million is still really good for sustaining a triple A title. I'm sure a game in the future with open world pvp as it's main focus could hit those numbers and EVE is already doing it right now at 500k.
I only brought up sandbox because the same argument is leveled at it and it's just as much rubbish as the original claim in this thread.
What kind of numbers or subs would be needed to sustain a game with either focus? I think there is enough demand to hit half a million on either front with a quality game. There's enough evidence to support that by looking at multiple current MMOs. Saying it's not possible or not true is just plain old false.
Forget the sandbox thing, that comment was directed at another thread.
The number of subscribers depends on the development resources spent on a game. The more resources spent, the more subscribers needed. This topic is about "big budget" games though.
People keep saying that there hasn't been an OWPvP AAA game or a Sandbox AAA game to prove the point, but it's not necessary. Age of Conan was known to have issues before it released. That didn't stop nearly a million people from signing up. Warhammer Online was kind of the same way. Issues were advertised, complaints were posted, but it didn't matter. People bought the game anyway.
Compare this to Mortal Online or Darkfall. People did not adopt those games the same way they adopted other games. Yes, they had issues, but so has every other MMORPG that has ever released. It doesn't matter because people will buy into a game based on the idea of the game rather than the reality of the game.
We know that people are interested in the idea of PvP too. Even hard core PvP because between Rust and DayZ, a couple to several million people have bought into it. Throw "sandbox" into that mix too. We know people like the idea of sandboxes because of the success of Minecraft, but most Minecraft players are on private servers or playing in single player. This is not an indicator that MMORPGs should be like Minecraft.
Where is the problem then? I think it's at the point where the game world becomes persistent. At that point, players become much less interested in OW PvP, especially with hard core rules. Feelings get hurt, joy is not had, etc. I think this is especially true for sandbox games because with the idea of sandbox and building up a bunch of stuff is the idea of losing all that stuff, and not having a "reset" button built into the game. The world is persistent, which means the loss is persistent too.
Sustaining a big budget OW PvP MMORPG has already been done. Half of all WoW's avatars are on PvP servers. AoC's PvP server is very popular. There seems to be far less interest in an MMORPG that only provides OW PvP. If players can choose between playing with PvP and playing with PvP flags, then they are more likely to try a game, and more likely to try the PvP side of things. Games that only offer one option are less popular, and probably always will be.
So the answer is that a game needs however many players it takes to support the game, pay back the investors and show the kind of profits that people expect. So far, it doesn't look like games focused on OW PvP in a persistent setting are going to offer the kind of financial performance that will attract the "big budget" investors or developers.
**
Concerning Eve; it is exceptional in many ways. Not the least of which is that it is self funded. The idea of the game has grown over time, but like many other games, it is an exception. Very few developers, unless they are working out of their basement, have twelve years to make a game actually work, and become popular. Very few developers are going to be self funded and able to build something the scope of Eve Online. Eve's players certainly show interest in Eve, but does that mean they are interested in OW PvP, Science Fiction, Spreadsheets or scamming people? Eve also has a very large number of players firmly holed up in HiSec space. They aren't participating in OW PvP. Many of them don't like it, especially when a corporation decides they are going to kill all the peaceful miners (does anyone else remember that?). Eve is fairly unique, that's why I'm talking about it down here.
You can not simply compare a failed AAA to a an indie game in hype or empty purchases. The MMORPG industry simply has not supported indie games in opening day purchases with any type of MMORPG. Age of Conan may have issues but its playablity and polish are on another level compared to any of those indie MMORPGs. Not to mention the marketing.
Initial player adoption of games is far more about the game's ideas than it is about the game's quality or completeness. That's why games like Rust can sell a million copies and games like Darkfall do not. The idea of Rust appeals far more than the idea of Darkfall. It's why AoC sold nearly a million copies and TSW sold only two hundred thousand.
It's the idea of the games that gets people in the door, it's the execution that gets them to stay. The games that present themselves as OW PvP MMORPGs get far fewer people in the door. People just aren't signing up for the ideas.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The stupid generalizations against people who enjoy open world pvp are making my brain hurt.
EDIT: You know what'd really funny? PVE players keep saying that sandbox doesn't mean owpvp, which is completly true. I just don't necesarily know how a completly pve sandbox world work.
But to the point, it's funny seeing players assuming open world pvp means gank-fest, as if they don't realize it can be ffa or faction based, criminal system in or out, with or without safe zones, and more importantly, it doesn't mean forced pvp. Wheter or not players can opt in or out is up to the games mechanics.
Well it wouldn't, unless you wrote a game like A Tale In The Desert. You would have PvP flags, like in SWG. That's another misconception, that most PvE players don't want any PvP. Most people are in the middle of the road, playing both PvE and PvP content. The trick is that they want to choose when they engage in PvP. That's pretty much it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This is repeated constantly in every discussion about ow pvp, so i want to make a specific thread to discuss that question.
Is really true that there isn't enough fans of ow pvp in the world to sustain and give profit to a big budget MMO?
is there any evidence to that statement?
Only if it is in the form of a MMORPG. I'm sure any MMOFPS or MMORTS could potentially become as large as a game like WoW. RPG's by their very nature require more time commitment than other genres and therefore are less conducive to PvP, especially in light of losses to progress, loot, gold or denial of access to content by PKers.
Someone would have to be an utter buffoon, completely inept and have zero knowledge of MMOs to even try fielding the notion that there isn't a massive demand for open world pvp. This is like the simple minded people who try to say that there is no demand for sandbox when Minecraft has sold over 20 million copies on PC alone.
It's uninformed, uneducated, clueless drivel to state that there are not enough pvpers to sustain a single game when literally dozens have already been mentioned in this thread.
the simple mindedness is to assume the success of a lego-type building game is indication of demand for a sandbox MMO.
Are you trying to say there isn't a demand?
There is a big difference between "a demand" and the kind of demand being implied in this thread.
Also, this is an example of what I was talking about with the OP's lack of internal consistency. Presumably we're discussing PvP, but now it's all about sandboxes and I feel sure that there's going to be an "OW PvP = Sandbox" post or discussion.
Well let's talk numbers then. How about a million? Even half a million is still really good for sustaining a triple A title. I'm sure a game in the future with open world pvp as it's main focus could hit those numbers and EVE is already doing it right now at 500k.
I only brought up sandbox because the same argument is leveled at it and it's just as much rubbish as the original claim in this thread.
What kind of numbers or subs would be needed to sustain a game with either focus? I think there is enough demand to hit half a million on either front with a quality game. There's enough evidence to support that by looking at multiple current MMOs. Saying it's not possible or not true is just plain old false.
Forget the sandbox thing, that comment was directed at another thread.
The number of subscribers depends on the development resources spent on a game. The more resources spent, the more subscribers needed. This topic is about "big budget" games though.
People keep saying that there hasn't been an OWPvP AAA game or a Sandbox AAA game to prove the point, but it's not necessary. Age of Conan was known to have issues before it released. That didn't stop nearly a million people from signing up. Warhammer Online was kind of the same way. Issues were advertised, complaints were posted, but it didn't matter. People bought the game anyway.
Compare this to Mortal Online or Darkfall. People did not adopt those games the same way they adopted other games. Yes, they had issues, but so has every other MMORPG that has ever released. It doesn't matter because people will buy into a game based on the idea of the game rather than the reality of the game.
We know that people are interested in the idea of PvP too. Even hard core PvP because between Rust and DayZ, a couple to several million people have bought into it. Throw "sandbox" into that mix too. We know people like the idea of sandboxes because of the success of Minecraft, but most Minecraft players are on private servers or playing in single player. This is not an indicator that MMORPGs should be like Minecraft.
Where is the problem then? I think it's at the point where the game world becomes persistent. At that point, players become much less interested in OW PvP, especially with hard core rules. Feelings get hurt, joy is not had, etc. I think this is especially true for sandbox games because with the idea of sandbox and building up a bunch of stuff is the idea of losing all that stuff, and not having a "reset" button built into the game. The world is persistent, which means the loss is persistent too.
Sustaining a big budget OW PvP MMORPG has already been done. Half of all WoW's avatars are on PvP servers. AoC's PvP server is very popular. There seems to be far less interest in an MMORPG that only provides OW PvP. If players can choose between playing with PvP and playing with PvP flags, then they are more likely to try a game, and more likely to try the PvP side of things. Games that only offer one option are less popular, and probably always will be.
So the answer is that a game needs however many players it takes to support the game, pay back the investors and show the kind of profits that people expect. So far, it doesn't look like games focused on OW PvP in a persistent setting are going to offer the kind of financial performance that will attract the "big budget" investors or developers.
**
Concerning Eve; it is exceptional in many ways. Not the least of which is that it is self funded. The idea of the game has grown over time, but like many other games, it is an exception. Very few developers, unless they are working out of their basement, have twelve years to make a game actually work, and become popular. Very few developers are going to be self funded and able to build something the scope of Eve Online. Eve's players certainly show interest in Eve, but does that mean they are interested in OW PvP, Science Fiction, Spreadsheets or scamming people? Eve also has a very large number of players firmly holed up in HiSec space. They aren't participating in OW PvP. Many of them don't like it, especially when a corporation decides they are going to kill all the peaceful miners (does anyone else remember that?). Eve is fairly unique, that's why I'm talking about it down here.
You can not simply compare a failed AAA to a an indie game in hype or empty purchases. The MMORPG industry simply has not supported indie games in opening day purchases with any type of MMORPG. Age of Conan may have issues but its playablity and polish are on another level compared to any of those indie MMORPGs. Not to mention the marketing.
Initial player adoption of games is far more about the game's ideas than it is about the game's quality or completeness. That's why games like Rust can sell a million copies and games like Darkfall do not. The idea of Rust appeals far more than the idea of Darkfall. It's why AoC sold nearly a million copies and TSW sold only two hundred thousand.
It's the idea of the games that gets people in the door, it's the execution that gets them to stay. The games that present themselves as OW PvP MMORPGs get far fewer people in the door. People just aren't signing up for the ideas.
No, Age of Conan had marking, IP and first 20 levels of good game play. Darkfall was buggy, crappy, and has a cost of entry and subscription. But indie MMORPG's have never been supported. It doesn't matter what kind.
Rust is not an MMORPG as far as I know and it cost 19 dollars and play how you like. It had a ton of hype around it. The idea around an indie FFA-PvP game is not positive. Maybe once the expertise and barrier of entry is lower will indie MMORPG's be supported.
The stupid generalizations against people who enjoy open world pvp are making my brain hurt.
EDIT: You know what'd really funny? PVE players keep saying that sandbox doesn't mean owpvp, which is completly true. I just don't necesarily know how a completly pve sandbox world work.
But to the point, it's funny seeing players assuming open world pvp means gank-fest, as if they don't realize it can be ffa or faction based, criminal system in or out, with or without safe zones, and more importantly, it doesn't mean forced pvp. Wheter or not players can opt in or out is up to the games mechanics.
pve sanbox work because people like to create and have no problem to destroy own creations for buidling something better. In addition you there is always AI. the major difference between pve and pvp is who is in control.
More interesting for me is the "Wheter or not players can opt in or out is up to the games mechanics." because the major conflict between pve-players and pvp-players isn't realy the open world but the existence of limiting mechanics. Once there is an option to block pvp for your character the pve-crowd simply wouldn't care about ow or arena. At this point it becomes a conflict between different pvp-crowds but there are always thoose players that don't like to give others the option to say no. I'm not saying all pvp'ers do, probably just a minority but i can see them complaining at least as often as pve-players who don't want the forced pvp.
The problem with PVP is that if you like it,you will pretty much ONLY pvp and same for PVE players.The two ideas simply do not mix well inside of mmorpg's,players usually like one or the other but not both.
Then you can further break down the pvp players.For example i do not like sloppy large scale pvp,i prefer few players like a controlled 4 player max or better yet 1 vs 1.
I prefer large scale content to be npc versus PC's ,imo it is more FUN that way.The simple reason is that i buy a game because i want to play the content,if the content is just the players fighting each other why even bother to have content?
Simple answer NO,any dev going that way would have to pick a VERY niche area and hope to get lucky.Example Eve is a very weak game design wise,but CCP entered a no competition market,so ALL the gamer's that wanted that pvp in a space game joined the same ONE game.Once you have a stronghold in a market it is tough to lose it because gamer's are notorious for not letting go of their game for fear of losing all that hard work.So it takes a REALLY much superior product to finally over take that market which the FIRST developer cornered.
Where pvp is thriving is in the simple LOL/Dota type games,small map,meaningless assets,just a couple targets and the players and their minions.The purpose as in fps's is JUST pvp ,that ios why it works,as i said you can't mix PVE and PVP there is no room for it to work.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Someone would have to be an utter buffoon, completely inept and have zero knowledge of MMOs to even try fielding the notion that there isn't a massive demand for open world pvp. This is like the simple minded people who try to say that there is no demand for sandbox when Minecraft has sold over 20 million copies on PC alone.
It's uninformed, uneducated, clueless drivel to state that there are not enough pvpers to sustain a single game when literally dozens have already been mentioned in this thread.
the simple mindedness is to assume the success of a lego-type building game is indication of demand for a sandbox MMO.
Are you trying to say there isn't a demand?
There is a big difference between "a demand" and the kind of demand being implied in this thread.
Also, this is an example of what I was talking about with the OP's lack of internal consistency. Presumably we're discussing PvP, but now it's all about sandboxes and I feel sure that there's going to be an "OW PvP = Sandbox" post or discussion.
Well let's talk numbers then. How about a million? Even half a million is still really good for sustaining a triple A title. I'm sure a game in the future with open world pvp as it's main focus could hit those numbers and EVE is already doing it right now at 500k.
I only brought up sandbox because the same argument is leveled at it and it's just as much rubbish as the original claim in this thread.
What kind of numbers or subs would be needed to sustain a game with either focus? I think there is enough demand to hit half a million on either front with a quality game. There's enough evidence to support that by looking at multiple current MMOs. Saying it's not possible or not true is just plain old false.
Eve doesn't have 500K people playing it. It has a smaller population who collectively own 500K accounts. When it comes to it's original or unique player base size (Not the accounts but actual players) EVE is fraction of 500K,
It really doesn't matter for EVE since it's making money and is a success, the issue isn't EVE for EVE, It's anyone trying to use EVE as an example for any other PVP MMORPG. In a market where publishers are struggling to get players to keep even a single subscription account, I don't think any will risk making a big budget game on such a gamble as thinking players will pay for 2 or more subscriptions each.
Originally posted by stayBlind There is a reason I do not play EVE. I hate spawning in as a new player and immediately being killed, because OWPVP means that this will happen.
I have a few alt accounts in EVE and every time I made a new char this NEVER happened. Hi sec suicide gankers only gank targets of value. Not some 1 day old scrub in a rookie ship with nothing in his cargo hold.
OWPVP does not immediately mean you are going to be ganked at every opportunity, get your head out of the sand and play one of these games before you assume the worst of them.
Someone would have to be an utter buffoon, completely inept and have zero knowledge of MMOs to even try fielding the notion that there isn't a massive demand for open world pvp. This is like the simple minded people who try to say that there is no demand for sandbox when Minecraft has sold over 20 million copies on PC alone.
It's uninformed, uneducated, clueless drivel to state that there are not enough pvpers to sustain a single game when literally dozens have already been mentioned in this thread.
the simple mindedness is to assume the success of a lego-type building game is indication of demand for a sandbox MMO.
Are you trying to say there isn't a demand?
There is a big difference between "a demand" and the kind of demand being implied in this thread.
Also, this is an example of what I was talking about with the OP's lack of internal consistency. Presumably we're discussing PvP, but now it's all about sandboxes and I feel sure that there's going to be an "OW PvP = Sandbox" post or discussion.
Well let's talk numbers then. How about a million? Even half a million is still really good for sustaining a triple A title. I'm sure a game in the future with open world pvp as it's main focus could hit those numbers and EVE is already doing it right now at 500k.
I only brought up sandbox because the same argument is leveled at it and it's just as much rubbish as the original claim in this thread.
What kind of numbers or subs would be needed to sustain a game with either focus? I think there is enough demand to hit half a million on either front with a quality game. There's enough evidence to support that by looking at multiple current MMOs. Saying it's not possible or not true is just plain old false.
Forget the sandbox thing, that comment was directed at another thread.
The number of subscribers depends on the development resources spent on a game. The more resources spent, the more subscribers needed. This topic is about "big budget" games though.
People keep saying that there hasn't been an OWPvP AAA game or a Sandbox AAA game to prove the point, but it's not necessary. Age of Conan was known to have issues before it released. That didn't stop nearly a million people from signing up. Warhammer Online was kind of the same way. Issues were advertised, complaints were posted, but it didn't matter. People bought the game anyway.
Compare this to Mortal Online or Darkfall. People did not adopt those games the same way they adopted other games. Yes, they had issues, but so has every other MMORPG that has ever released. It doesn't matter because people will buy into a game based on the idea of the game rather than the reality of the game.
We know that people are interested in the idea of PvP too. Even hard core PvP because between Rust and DayZ, a couple to several million people have bought into it. Throw "sandbox" into that mix too. We know people like the idea of sandboxes because of the success of Minecraft, but most Minecraft players are on private servers or playing in single player. This is not an indicator that MMORPGs should be like Minecraft.
Where is the problem then? I think it's at the point where the game world becomes persistent. At that point, players become much less interested in OW PvP, especially with hard core rules. Feelings get hurt, joy is not had, etc. I think this is especially true for sandbox games because with the idea of sandbox and building up a bunch of stuff is the idea of losing all that stuff, and not having a "reset" button built into the game. The world is persistent, which means the loss is persistent too.
Sustaining a big budget OW PvP MMORPG has already been done. Half of all WoW's avatars are on PvP servers. AoC's PvP server is very popular. There seems to be far less interest in an MMORPG that only provides OW PvP. If players can choose between playing with PvP and playing with PvP flags, then they are more likely to try a game, and more likely to try the PvP side of things. Games that only offer one option are less popular, and probably always will be.
So the answer is that a game needs however many players it takes to support the game, pay back the investors and show the kind of profits that people expect. So far, it doesn't look like games focused on OW PvP in a persistent setting are going to offer the kind of financial performance that will attract the "big budget" investors or developers.
**
Concerning Eve; it is exceptional in many ways. Not the least of which is that it is self funded. The idea of the game has grown over time, but like many other games, it is an exception. Very few developers, unless they are working out of their basement, have twelve years to make a game actually work, and become popular. Very few developers are going to be self funded and able to build something the scope of Eve Online. Eve's players certainly show interest in Eve, but does that mean they are interested in OW PvP, Science Fiction, Spreadsheets or scamming people? Eve also has a very large number of players firmly holed up in HiSec space. They aren't participating in OW PvP. Many of them don't like it, especially when a corporation decides they are going to kill all the peaceful miners (does anyone else remember that?). Eve is fairly unique, that's why I'm talking about it down here.
You can not simply compare a failed AAA to a an indie game in hype or empty purchases. The MMORPG industry simply has not supported indie games in opening day purchases with any type of MMORPG. Age of Conan may have issues but its playablity and polish are on another level compared to any of those indie MMORPGs. Not to mention the marketing.
Initial player adoption of games is far more about the game's ideas than it is about the game's quality or completeness. That's why games like Rust can sell a million copies and games like Darkfall do not. The idea of Rust appeals far more than the idea of Darkfall. It's why AoC sold nearly a million copies and TSW sold only two hundred thousand.
It's the idea of the games that gets people in the door, it's the execution that gets them to stay. The games that present themselves as OW PvP MMORPGs get far fewer people in the door. People just aren't signing up for the ideas.
No, Age of Conan had marking, IP and first 20 levels of good game play. Darkfall was buggy, crappy, and has a cost of entry and subscription. But indie MMORPG's have never been supported. It doesn't matter what kind.
Rust is not an MMORPG as far as I know and it cost 19 dollars and play how you like. It had a ton of hype around it. The idea around an indie FFA-PvP game is not positive. Maybe once the expertise and barrier of entry is lower will indie MMORPG's be supported.
AAAAARRGH! A single click an my entire post is gone. GRAAAAARGH! It's like I've been griefed by an open world PvP player, but it was just an NPC and my own inattention! AAAAAAAAAAARGH!
This is going to be a lot shorter than it was intended to be.
People very obviously buy into just ideas, whether the games work or not. That space game has raised over forty million dollars on just an idea. Rust sold well over a million copies, and the game isn't even close to being done. If people like the idea for a game, they will buy into it and everything else doesn't really matter.
Here's the important part. The OP is on about the number of OW PvP players in the world. Of course there are enought to support at least one game. The trick part 1 is finding all those players in the West. The trick part 2 is getting them to agree on all the other features, outside of the OW PvP that are important or required. Heck, just getting them to agree on a setting would be a huge victory.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by stayBlind There is a reason I do not play EVE. I hate spawning in as a new player and immediately being killed, because OWPVP means that this will happen.
Originally posted by Wizardry Example Eve is a very weak game design wise,but CCP entered a no competition market,so ALL the gamer's that wanted that pvp in a space game joined the same ONE game.
Originally posted by GeezerGamer When it comes to it's original or unique player base size (Not the accounts but actual players) EVE is fraction of 500K,
Why people talk about games they have no clue of...?
Example Eve is a very weak game design wise,but CCP entered a no competition market,so ALL the gamer's that wanted that pvp in a space game joined the same ONE game.
Originally posted by GeezerGamer
When it comes to it's original or unique player base size (Not the accounts but actual players) EVE is fraction of 500K,
Why people talk about games they have no clue of...?
Eve has no competition and it's a well known fact that the game has around 500k subs and it's very common for players to have multiple accounts. That would mean the actual number of players would have to be less.
How much do you really need to know about the game to make either of those posts true ?
Originally posted by DamonVile Eve has no competition and it's a well known fact that the game has around 500k subs and it's very common for players to have multiple accounts. That would mean the actual number of players would have to be less.How much do you really need to know about the game to make either of those posts true ?
So WoW has no competition either?
There were/are other space ship games(Vendetta, Taikodom, Black Prophecy etc) but EVE is just the best of them. EVE got very rough start and got almost shut down, people do not remember that though.
Every game has players with multiple accounts. Moot point.
Rumors, guestimates and baseless assumptions make no true.
You dont need a large population for open world pvp 'sand box' mmos if they do it in a different way.
For example have waves of npcs that react to open world events such as npc alignments, quests completions in certain areas by faction, maybe even weather. This means that npcs are moving and reacting in the world... therefore you can make an actual player feel more epic when they have such a strong influence over npcs and map changes.
Instead of seeing a zerg of players you have no chance against, you can face a small army of npcs, or doing open world objectives to advance your factions position.
Pvp can be structured to be fast paced and quickyl developed.
With the same train of thought this can also include crafting and the in game economy that money is easy to come by, and building and destroying is easy to do.
If they make it so one player can collect enough resources to act like a 1 person guild, then you wont need to have the long waits between, and even with a low population on a game such as this it would be engaging and at the same time allow players to feel stronger over npcs in the pvp area creating that sense of being a general, or as if playing an rts and controlling hordes of npcs or getting rid of them.
I think the extreme concept of a sand box is not only lazy, its just not fun for a lot of ppl. Its too much down time and grinds which inherently is part of the reward or challenge. Sure some ppl like such a game, but not a majority. they will want something that feels action packed like most games are anyhow.
Sand box games might be more true to traditional mmos of the past with long grinds before playing the actual pvp aspect of a sand box, but to have a huge budget for that ... its not even necesasry. Why would they need a huge budget that barely has any content? And most of the content is done by the players?
A small team with limited funds should be able to create a sand box mmo if they wanted... the only thing they really need to do well is 1. have good combat, and 2. have systems that allow for sand box to work well and balancing that out. Its really not that much... and to say you want a huge budget for a sand box means you want it to be more than a sand box mmo.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
The answer to OP's question is clearly yes. The only meaningful question is:
Are there enough PvPers in the na/eu market to just a big budget (which is well over 100 million these days.) western developed mmo.
and the answer is an overwhelming no, I don't see anyone in their right mind risking 150-300 million on na/eu PvPers.
On the bright side given the rise of the Chinese market big budget PvP mmos are only likely to become more common. They just won't be launching first in America or designed to cater to the Western market's taste.
To answer this we need to look at the facts, what do the current "PvP MMORPGs" have in common?
- Low budget
- Next to no marketing
- Lack of proper advertisement campaigns
- No funds to develop a game that can compete expertise wise versus AAA developers
- No resources to bring new players to the market
And bam, there you have your reasons why PvP MMOs aren't as popular as "themeparks" are. They simply lack every single required point in the checklist to compete. It's nothing related to the features of the game alone. If Blizzard suddenly smacked in a Starcraft PvP MMO, imagine the sales figures. Would it be killed because of "Open world PvP" of course not, naturally there would be players from current market who'd demand change or wouldn't play the game, but what's to stop new players from arriving to the market. It's about the resources. Sometimes even hype, man do I remember the hype around Darkfall, now if it only had delivered (which it clearly did not). Then we have games like DayZ, which is a complete hardcore experience, look at the figures: over 1 million copies during first 4 weeks of ALPHA pre-release.
Now, going back in time, games like DAoC & Shadowbane had plenty of subs in their time, and for varied reasons these games fell and lost subs, yet they had good subscription figures for their time. (Remember the market was a lot smaller back in the day). And a lot of players from all "PvP" mmos of the genre are waiting for a good game, with good IP, AAA development and funds to pull it off.
People think MMORPG market is just one market, when in reality it is its own macro environment, with a lot of different markets to satisfy. You can call these whatever you want, but I'll simplify them to: FFA Sandbox, regular sandbox, traditional themepark, new themepark, Siege MMORPGs. Now, traditional themepark market is naturally saturated, and is being dominated by one giant. EVE falls to FFA sandbox slot in its own way, yet its a space ship MMO, so its in its own way a niche. But when adding all time total figures of subscriptions, MMO market may very well consist of 20-30 million players, and the number is growing each day. Who's to say there isn't that required 5% player base in such huge macro enviroment that fall to the market slot of "PvP MMO?"
So yes, there is a market not satisfied yet. Developer's just haven't dwelled there yet. And its not because of their "Market researching" (Every corporate guy bursted to laugh when someone stated this earlier in the thread) It's simply because no one has actually thought of a new concept for that yet. Remember canned red & white wines were something nobody thought of prior to few years back, and now you can get them in almost every major sports event.
I don't play PvP often. I am the guy everyone else ganks repeatedly, and my K/D ratio is something like 2:45.
I always thought it was funny that nearly without exception, when hearing other people talk in a PvP game, everyone would brag about having a K/D ratio greater than 1:1.
A lot of PvP'ers live at Lake Woebegone, where all the kids are above average.
I think it goes back to - everyone loves being the ganker, no one likes to get ganked.
Aside from the mostly pure FPS games, which have very little in the way of advancement or "level up", you won't see much that's successful. If you can keep the playing field even, then you get skill-based competition. If you have gear/levels/advantage, then you get the few who get in early and stay and get to the top of the power ladder, and a high barrier to entry for someone coming into the game new afterwards who has to suffer through being the "gankee" for a long time.
A lot of people love to talk about how Eve lets someone with a lot of skill be successful early on... I guess that depends on what you define as success - you can run around and be a nuisance in a frigate on day one I suppose, but there's only so much skill to be had when the entire metagame is just in what mods you can slot on your frame, and that's all got to do with time and money. And no one is going to be rolling around in a capital on day one.
So yeah, I think there are a lot of Open World PvP games - PS2 comes to mind primarily. Most are map-based because gankers -- I mean "players" -- love maps they can memorize so they can find all the newbie fodder in order to plump their K/D ratio.
Originally posted by Ridelynn A lot of people love to talk about how Eve lets someone with a lot of skill be successful early on... I guess that depends on what you define as success - you can run around and be a nuisance in a frigate on day one I suppose, but there's only so much skill to be had when the entire metagame is just in what mods you can slot on your frame, and that's all got to do with time and money. And no one is going to be rolling around in a capital on day one.
I played EVE for 4 years, never owned or flown a capital ship. Got into battleships after 1.5 year of play and that was because I didn't have anything else to train. I also made a trial account toon and made about 1B ISK within 2 days.
Comments
Little forum boys with their polished cyber toys: whine whine, boo-hoo, talk talk.
It works both ways things like cowards,carebears and stupid AI fighting breeds stupid players so on and so forth.
doesnt that apply to anyone who likes to kill other players then verbally stomps on their faces after wining or losing? Because that seems to occur a lot more in instanced pvp where everyone is packed together like chickens with their heads cut off. That has nothing to do with open world. But i also think you could be less narrow minded.
Little forum boys with their polished cyber toys: whine whine, boo-hoo, talk talk.
True, but see my edited post. Generalizing all of us who enjoy owpvp for different reasons by calling us parasites and mules is pretty disrespectfull.
There's a-holes in every video game that will try to ruin your fun out of sick pleasure. Obviously, in uncontrolled owpvp they can have more control, but high level griefers that come to low level areas and kill low level mobs are also griefers.
I personally don't let a bunch of random internet people get to me. Just pointing out the complete irony of many posts in this thread. Meh, more popcorn for me. IQ dropping popcorn, but still popcorn.
Initial player adoption of games is far more about the game's ideas than it is about the game's quality or completeness. That's why games like Rust can sell a million copies and games like Darkfall do not. The idea of Rust appeals far more than the idea of Darkfall. It's why AoC sold nearly a million copies and TSW sold only two hundred thousand.
It's the idea of the games that gets people in the door, it's the execution that gets them to stay. The games that present themselves as OW PvP MMORPGs get far fewer people in the door. People just aren't signing up for the ideas.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Well it wouldn't, unless you wrote a game like A Tale In The Desert. You would have PvP flags, like in SWG. That's another misconception, that most PvE players don't want any PvP. Most people are in the middle of the road, playing both PvE and PvP content. The trick is that they want to choose when they engage in PvP. That's pretty much it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Only if it is in the form of a MMORPG. I'm sure any MMOFPS or MMORTS could potentially become as large as a game like WoW. RPG's by their very nature require more time commitment than other genres and therefore are less conducive to PvP, especially in light of losses to progress, loot, gold or denial of access to content by PKers.
No, Age of Conan had marking, IP and first 20 levels of good game play. Darkfall was buggy, crappy, and has a cost of entry and subscription. But indie MMORPG's have never been supported. It doesn't matter what kind.
Rust is not an MMORPG as far as I know and it cost 19 dollars and play how you like. It had a ton of hype around it. The idea around an indie FFA-PvP game is not positive. Maybe once the expertise and barrier of entry is lower will indie MMORPG's be supported.
pve sanbox work because people like to create and have no problem to destroy own creations for buidling something better. In addition you there is always AI. the major difference between pve and pvp is who is in control.
More interesting for me is the "Wheter or not players can opt in or out is up to the games mechanics." because the major conflict between pve-players and pvp-players isn't realy the open world but the existence of limiting mechanics. Once there is an option to block pvp for your character the pve-crowd simply wouldn't care about ow or arena. At this point it becomes a conflict between different pvp-crowds but there are always thoose players that don't like to give others the option to say no. I'm not saying all pvp'ers do, probably just a minority but i can see them complaining at least as often as pve-players who don't want the forced pvp.
The problem with PVP is that if you like it,you will pretty much ONLY pvp and same for PVE players.The two ideas simply do not mix well inside of mmorpg's,players usually like one or the other but not both.
Then you can further break down the pvp players.For example i do not like sloppy large scale pvp,i prefer few players like a controlled 4 player max or better yet 1 vs 1.
I prefer large scale content to be npc versus PC's ,imo it is more FUN that way.The simple reason is that i buy a game because i want to play the content,if the content is just the players fighting each other why even bother to have content?
Simple answer NO,any dev going that way would have to pick a VERY niche area and hope to get lucky.Example Eve is a very weak game design wise,but CCP entered a no competition market,so ALL the gamer's that wanted that pvp in a space game joined the same ONE game.Once you have a stronghold in a market it is tough to lose it because gamer's are notorious for not letting go of their game for fear of losing all that hard work.So it takes a REALLY much superior product to finally over take that market which the FIRST developer cornered.
Where pvp is thriving is in the simple LOL/Dota type games,small map,meaningless assets,just a couple targets and the players and their minions.The purpose as in fps's is JUST pvp ,that ios why it works,as i said you can't mix PVE and PVP there is no room for it to work.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Eve doesn't have 500K people playing it. It has a smaller population who collectively own 500K accounts. When it comes to it's original or unique player base size (Not the accounts but actual players) EVE is fraction of 500K,
It really doesn't matter for EVE since it's making money and is a success, the issue isn't EVE for EVE, It's anyone trying to use EVE as an example for any other PVP MMORPG. In a market where publishers are struggling to get players to keep even a single subscription account, I don't think any will risk making a big budget game on such a gamble as thinking players will pay for 2 or more subscriptions each.
I have a few alt accounts in EVE and every time I made a new char this NEVER happened. Hi sec suicide gankers only gank targets of value. Not some 1 day old scrub in a rookie ship with nothing in his cargo hold.
OWPVP does not immediately mean you are going to be ganked at every opportunity, get your head out of the sand and play one of these games before you assume the worst of them.
AAAAARRGH! A single click an my entire post is gone. GRAAAAARGH! It's like I've been griefed by an open world PvP player, but it was just an NPC and my own inattention! AAAAAAAAAAARGH!
This is going to be a lot shorter than it was intended to be.
People very obviously buy into just ideas, whether the games work or not. That space game has raised over forty million dollars on just an idea. Rust sold well over a million copies, and the game isn't even close to being done. If people like the idea for a game, they will buy into it and everything else doesn't really matter.
Here's the important part. The OP is on about the number of OW PvP players in the world. Of course there are enought to support at least one game. The trick part 1 is finding all those players in the West. The trick part 2 is getting them to agree on all the other features, outside of the OW PvP that are important or required. Heck, just getting them to agree on a setting would be a huge victory.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
And then your theory meets with reality...
EVE is nothing like that.
Why people talk about games they have no clue of...?
Eve has no competition and it's a well known fact that the game has around 500k subs and it's very common for players to have multiple accounts. That would mean the actual number of players would have to be less.
How much do you really need to know about the game to make either of those posts true ?
So WoW has no competition either?
There were/are other space ship games(Vendetta, Taikodom, Black Prophecy etc) but EVE is just the best of them. EVE got very rough start and got almost shut down, people do not remember that though.
Every game has players with multiple accounts. Moot point.
Rumors, guestimates and baseless assumptions make no true.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
You dont need a large population for open world pvp 'sand box' mmos if they do it in a different way.
For example have waves of npcs that react to open world events such as npc alignments, quests completions in certain areas by faction, maybe even weather. This means that npcs are moving and reacting in the world... therefore you can make an actual player feel more epic when they have such a strong influence over npcs and map changes.
Instead of seeing a zerg of players you have no chance against, you can face a small army of npcs, or doing open world objectives to advance your factions position.
Pvp can be structured to be fast paced and quickyl developed.
With the same train of thought this can also include crafting and the in game economy that money is easy to come by, and building and destroying is easy to do.
If they make it so one player can collect enough resources to act like a 1 person guild, then you wont need to have the long waits between, and even with a low population on a game such as this it would be engaging and at the same time allow players to feel stronger over npcs in the pvp area creating that sense of being a general, or as if playing an rts and controlling hordes of npcs or getting rid of them.
I think the extreme concept of a sand box is not only lazy, its just not fun for a lot of ppl. Its too much down time and grinds which inherently is part of the reward or challenge. Sure some ppl like such a game, but not a majority. they will want something that feels action packed like most games are anyhow.
Sand box games might be more true to traditional mmos of the past with long grinds before playing the actual pvp aspect of a sand box, but to have a huge budget for that ... its not even necesasry. Why would they need a huge budget that barely has any content? And most of the content is done by the players?
A small team with limited funds should be able to create a sand box mmo if they wanted... the only thing they really need to do well is 1. have good combat, and 2. have systems that allow for sand box to work well and balancing that out. Its really not that much... and to say you want a huge budget for a sand box means you want it to be more than a sand box mmo.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
The answer to OP's question is clearly yes. The only meaningful question is:
Are there enough PvPers in the na/eu market to just a big budget (which is well over 100 million these days.) western developed mmo.
and the answer is an overwhelming no, I don't see anyone in their right mind risking 150-300 million on na/eu PvPers.
On the bright side given the rise of the Chinese market big budget PvP mmos are only likely to become more common. They just won't be launching first in America or designed to cater to the Western market's taste.
To answer this we need to look at the facts, what do the current "PvP MMORPGs" have in common?
- Low budget
- Next to no marketing
- Lack of proper advertisement campaigns
- No funds to develop a game that can compete expertise wise versus AAA developers
- No resources to bring new players to the market
And bam, there you have your reasons why PvP MMOs aren't as popular as "themeparks" are. They simply lack every single required point in the checklist to compete. It's nothing related to the features of the game alone. If Blizzard suddenly smacked in a Starcraft PvP MMO, imagine the sales figures. Would it be killed because of "Open world PvP" of course not, naturally there would be players from current market who'd demand change or wouldn't play the game, but what's to stop new players from arriving to the market. It's about the resources. Sometimes even hype, man do I remember the hype around Darkfall, now if it only had delivered (which it clearly did not). Then we have games like DayZ, which is a complete hardcore experience, look at the figures: over 1 million copies during first 4 weeks of ALPHA pre-release.
Now, going back in time, games like DAoC & Shadowbane had plenty of subs in their time, and for varied reasons these games fell and lost subs, yet they had good subscription figures for their time. (Remember the market was a lot smaller back in the day). And a lot of players from all "PvP" mmos of the genre are waiting for a good game, with good IP, AAA development and funds to pull it off.
People think MMORPG market is just one market, when in reality it is its own macro environment, with a lot of different markets to satisfy. You can call these whatever you want, but I'll simplify them to: FFA Sandbox, regular sandbox, traditional themepark, new themepark, Siege MMORPGs. Now, traditional themepark market is naturally saturated, and is being dominated by one giant. EVE falls to FFA sandbox slot in its own way, yet its a space ship MMO, so its in its own way a niche. But when adding all time total figures of subscriptions, MMO market may very well consist of 20-30 million players, and the number is growing each day. Who's to say there isn't that required 5% player base in such huge macro enviroment that fall to the market slot of "PvP MMO?"
So yes, there is a market not satisfied yet. Developer's just haven't dwelled there yet. And its not because of their "Market researching" (Every corporate guy bursted to laugh when someone stated this earlier in the thread) It's simply because no one has actually thought of a new concept for that yet. Remember canned red & white wines were something nobody thought of prior to few years back, and now you can get them in almost every major sports event.
I don't play PvP often. I am the guy everyone else ganks repeatedly, and my K/D ratio is something like 2:45.
I always thought it was funny that nearly without exception, when hearing other people talk in a PvP game, everyone would brag about having a K/D ratio greater than 1:1.
A lot of PvP'ers live at Lake Woebegone, where all the kids are above average.
I think it goes back to - everyone loves being the ganker, no one likes to get ganked.
Aside from the mostly pure FPS games, which have very little in the way of advancement or "level up", you won't see much that's successful. If you can keep the playing field even, then you get skill-based competition. If you have gear/levels/advantage, then you get the few who get in early and stay and get to the top of the power ladder, and a high barrier to entry for someone coming into the game new afterwards who has to suffer through being the "gankee" for a long time.
A lot of people love to talk about how Eve lets someone with a lot of skill be successful early on... I guess that depends on what you define as success - you can run around and be a nuisance in a frigate on day one I suppose, but there's only so much skill to be had when the entire metagame is just in what mods you can slot on your frame, and that's all got to do with time and money. And no one is going to be rolling around in a capital on day one.
So yeah, I think there are a lot of Open World PvP games - PS2 comes to mind primarily. Most are map-based because gankers -- I mean "players" -- love maps they can memorize so they can find all the newbie fodder in order to plump their K/D ratio.
I played EVE for 4 years, never owned or flown a capital ship. Got into battleships after 1.5 year of play and that was because I didn't have anything else to train.
I also made a trial account toon and made about 1B ISK within 2 days.
I think you are missing the point there...