But either way, EVE is a game with full loot (or at least you lose everything you have on you) ow pvp and it is successful. If they have 400k subs and only 100k live in low or null sec, that's still quite a few people. What point are you even trying to make?
Doubful. I havent logged in in months but it was at its height then and most people I saw were like 60K online, and dont think because there were 60K online meant there are 500K people playing it, because everyone stays logged into that game 24/7 on all their accounts.
The numbers for EVE are as fake as they can get. I had 4 accounts I played at the same time. I had about a trillion ISK and a few dozen Plex when I just stopped bothering.
I think I said it in another post somewhere that in the 5 years I played I lost one single ship on my 'non low sec' account, and even on the account I took chances with I lost less than a dozen ships. That was when I was running with a decent corporation and we did quite a bit of low sec stuff.
So continually putting EVE up there as some success story is not that relevant. its a 12 year old game with no lifers and spread sheet guys playing it trying to be the next big internet hero by doing something that becomes urban legend. I know guys that dwarf me in ISK and PLEX (one guy I know had over 200 PLEX thats about 3000 in real life cash.) I used to have almost 100 myself but I sold a bunch when they hit a billion (bought them years ago for 250-300 million but stopped playing then for awhile too). So right now EVE is a game where a few people trade in PLEX and CCP seeds the game also allowing long time rich people(in game rich) who havent hoarded PLEX like most of us have to continue to play for free. Sure a few people might actually subscribe to it but I suspect the number of people spending real life money in that game on PLEX or subs is a small minority of players. Simply because its an old established game that has die hards playing it that take advantage of every short term spurt in players and resources that hit the game every once in awhile.
We shouldn't hone our definition of "successful game" to the point where only World of Warcraft is considered successful.
CCP went from a very small startup to a fairly large and profitable multinational corporation on the back of EVE Online (it certainly wasn't because of DUST).
They've possibly died down a bit in the past few years, i'm not sure. But in the world of MMORPGs what CCP did was without a doubt a success. Whether they can maintain that success after a decade is a different matter.
We shouldn't hone our definition of "successful game" to the point where only World of Warcraft is considered successful.
CCP went from a very small startup to a fairly large and profitable multinational corporation on the back of EVE Online (it certainly wasn't because of DUST).
They've possibly died down a bit in the past few years, i'm not sure. But in the world of MMORPGs what CCP did was without a doubt a success. Whether they can maintain that success after a decade is a different matter.
I dont pigeon hole things that way. I didnt say it was a success or a failure it is just what it is a game that has a cult following that has been around forever, and THAT more than anytihng is the reason it continues. Its no surprise the games wit the most hardcore fans are the game at least 10 years old. because they came out Pre WoW for the most part or right around the same time or at least close enough to not get swept up into the whole WoW phenomena.
EVE is a hybrid game, you can buy in game time with in game gold. So it isnt a pure subscription game. So that right there makes the numbers dubious. How many individuals does it have? No one can say for sure I doubt CCP even knows that since everyone masks IPs and their multiple accounts. But it has a decent following. So do a lot of other games.
But too often people denote 'success' with player population. Mostly because they think it is 'obvious'. But it isnt. Because some games have free players others have people that pay full price some have people that pay much less than full price. Even WoW with all its accolades doesnt have a lot of people who pay full price for their subscriptions.
Not to go off on a complete tangent but I think if these games that are being made these days allow their makers to not work a real job and pay their bills for a few year their makers would think they were a success no matter how the MMO player base defines them.
But either way, EVE is a game with full loot (or at least you lose everything you have on you) ow pvp and it is successful. If they have 400k subs and only 100k live in low or null sec, that's still quite a few people. What point are you even trying to make?
Doubful. I havent logged in in months but it was at its height then and most people I saw were like 60K online, and dont think because there were 60K online meant there are 500K people playing it, because everyone stays logged into that game 24/7 on all their accounts.
The numbers for EVE are as fake as they can get. I had 4 accounts I played at the same time. I had about a trillion ISK and a few dozen Plex when I just stopped bothering.
I think I said it in another post somewhere that in the 5 years I played I lost one single ship on my 'non low sec' account, and even on the account I took chances with I lost less than a dozen ships. That was when I was running with a decent corporation and we did quite a bit of low sec stuff.
So continually putting EVE up there as some success story is not that relevant. its a 12 year old game with no lifers and spread sheet guys playing it trying to be the next big internet hero by doing something that becomes urban legend. I know guys that dwarf me in ISK and PLEX (one guy I know had over 200 PLEX thats about 3000 in real life cash.) I used to have almost 100 myself but I sold a bunch when they hit a billion (bought them years ago for 250-300 million but stopped playing then for awhile too). So right now EVE is a game where a few people trade in PLEX and CCP seeds the game also allowing long time rich people(in game rich) who havent hoarded PLEX like most of us have to continue to play for free. Sure a few people might actually subscribe to it but I suspect the number of people spending real life money in that game on PLEX or subs is a small minority of players. Simply because its an old established game that has die hards playing it that take advantage of every short term spurt in players and resources that hit the game every once in awhile.
I picked the number because I thought it was common knowledge that they had ~500k subs, so I rounded it down a bit just to be safe. Either way, there are a lot of people who play EVE and don't live in high sec. It's a successful mmorpg with ow pvp.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky Originally posted by bcbully Landmark is a pve sandbox with 100% consensual pvp.How come you guys aren't playing that? How come no one is...
Not speaking for others, but I am just not a "pay for early access" kind of guy
It also isn't really a PvE game yet and I'm not sure it is ever going to be one. There are some things you can fight but it isn't really what anyone would think of as a PvE game at this point.
Personally I think every MMORPG should be designed with open world PvP in mind. Then they can turn PvP off on as many servers as the PvE crowd wants. That isn't really the reality of the genre right now so at the very least if you are going to make a PvE game flag a server or two as PvP enabled so everyone can enjoy it.
Battlegrounds and keep swap is PvP aimed at PvE players, they aren't aimed at the PvP crowd. Devs just need to realize this and give the choice to players. GW2 would have been so much better with a real PvP server. The PvE in that game was just bland and it could have used that interaction with others to make it interesting.
That's because of that minority that FFA PvP games don't and will never work.
Except for when they do!
None did so far. Still waiting.
And please don't say "EvE". Do you really want to call a "PvP success" a game where over 3 players out of 4 never leave high security areas (that's from CCP themself, not some forum rumor) ?
Yes I count it.
EVE is a great success and it is a game with integrated and meaningful PVP in all areas of the game. Any viewpoint that says otherwise is a viewpoint that is far too myopic to be taken seriously.
I get that you hate this sort of game and you want the world to be such that this type of game you hate is just so fundamentally flawed it can't work anywhere.
But thats not the case.
EVE Online absolutely disproves the notion. Any argument that it doesn't is just so much bending and contorting of the truth that it isn't worth having.
Yet that truth you seem to love so much, as stated not by a forum poster, not by some website, but by the developers of the game, is that most people in the game never engage in PvP and stay in areas where they can avoid it.
If that doesn't ring a bell, then let's guess who is bending and distorting the truth...
Surprisingly, even Guild Wars 1, which had the best MMORPG-style instanced PvP I've ever seen, had only 10% of its players playing PvP. And this too came from the developers themselves. They did everything they could to encourage people to get into PvP. It had several world championship tournaments with cash prizes and everything.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Personally I think every MMORPG should be designed with open world PvP in mind. Then they can turn PvP off on as many servers as the PvE crowd wants. That isn't really the reality of the genre right now so at the very least if you are going to make a PvE game flag a server or two as PvP enabled so everyone can enjoy it.
Battlegrounds and keep swap is PvP aimed at PvE players, they aren't aimed at the PvP crowd. Devs just need to realize this and give the choice to players. GW2 would have been so much better with a real PvP server. The PvE in that game was just bland and it could have used that interaction with others to make it interesting.
Open world PvP is a way to get cheap thrills from an otherwise bad-to-mediocre game. None of the games that have open world PvP haven't been all that great IMO.
Its like ketchup. It makes bad food taste better. But with good food, you don't miss it.
Then again, some people love ketchup...
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
We shouldn't hone our definition of "successful game" to the point where only World of Warcraft is considered successful.
CCP went from a very small startup to a fairly large and profitable multinational corporation on the back of EVE Online (it certainly wasn't because of DUST).
They've possibly died down a bit in the past few years, i'm not sure. But in the world of MMORPGs what CCP did was without a doubt a success. Whether they can maintain that success after a decade is a different matter.
How about TOR (which made $200M+ in 2013), or GW2 (which sells 3.5M copies in 2 weeks), or LoL?
CCP is successful enough to make some money and continue on one game. But everything else they did flopped, and there are plenty of companies more successful than CCP with more than one running game.
Personally I think every MMORPG should be designed with open world PvP in mind. Then they can turn PvP off on as many servers as the PvE crowd wants. That isn't really the reality of the genre right now so at the very least if you are going to make a PvE game flag a server or two as PvP enabled so everyone can enjoy it.
Battlegrounds and keep swap is PvP aimed at PvE players, they aren't aimed at the PvP crowd. Devs just need to realize this and give the choice to players. GW2 would have been so much better with a real PvP server. The PvE in that game was just bland and it could have used that interaction with others to make it interesting.
Open world PvP is a way to get cheap thrills from an otherwise bad-to-mediocre game. None of the games that have open world PvP haven't been all that great IMO.
Its like ketchup. It makes bad food taste better. But with good food, you don't miss it.
Then again, some people love ketchup...
I do not share your view on open world PVP, however we do see eye to eye on ketchup.
Also, your analogy was admittedly quite hilarious. Well done.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Personally I think every MMORPG should be designed with open world PvP in mind. Then they can turn PvP off on as many servers as the PvE crowd wants. That isn't really the reality of the genre right now so at the very least if you are going to make a PvE game flag a server or two as PvP enabled so everyone can enjoy it.
No, a game has to be designed with the target audience in mind.
If a huge majority of your target audience rejects open PvP, then designing your game around open PvP is horrible design.
You have to focus your resources on implementing the best gameplay possible for your main target audience. From the ground up. Anything else is suboptimal.
For this audience the PvP servers are the tacked on element, can't do it the other way around.
If you want to make a true open PvP game, you need to take the plunge and directly target that audience and focus on them.
In this point I agree to you: you can't tack on open PvP either, the game should be designed for it from the getgo.
I think the better question is when did it become unimportant to the consumer to have a deep fulfilling PVE experience in their sandbox. Back in MMO infancy games like DAOC and even SWG were working hard at perfecting pathing and AI to making the encounters more epic and fulfilling, now it seems all we see are the same set of mechanics.
Refugee from UO,EQ,AC,AC2,AO,DAOC,L2,SB,HZ,CoH,PT,EQ2,WoW,VG,SWG,EVE,WAR,DF,MO,AI,GA,LOTRO, SWTOR... Gw2 on Deck
That's because of that minority that FFA PvP games don't and will never work.
Except for when they do!
None did so far. Still waiting.
And please don't say "EvE". Do you really want to call a "PvP success" a game where over 3 players out of 4 never leave high security areas (that's from CCP themself, not some forum rumor) ?
Yes I count it.
EVE is a great success and it is a game with integrated and meaningful PVP in all areas of the game. Any viewpoint that says otherwise is a viewpoint that is far too myopic to be taken seriously.
I get that you hate this sort of game and you want the world to be such that this type of game you hate is just so fundamentally flawed it can't work anywhere.
But thats not the case.
EVE Online absolutely disproves the notion. Any argument that it doesn't is just so much bending and contorting of the truth that it isn't worth having.
Yet that truth you seem to love so much, as stated not by a forum poster, not by some website, but by the developers of the game, is that most people in the game never engage in PvP and stay in areas where they can avoid it.
If that doesn't ring a bell, then let's guess who is bending and distorting the truth...
Surprisingly, even Guild Wars 1, which had the best MMORPG-style instanced PvP I've ever seen, had only 10% of its players playing PvP. And this too came from the developers themselves. They did everything they could to encourage people to get into PvP. It had several world championship tournaments with cash prizes and everything.
WoW has kept millions of pvp players in well populated pvp servers for the past decade. The notion that pvp players are a minority is flat out wrong and usually comes from pve players who are 30 plus years in age who want to use old games before WoW (when the entire mmo industry itself was small) as examples on why open pvp sandbox wont work. There is a entire new market of younger players out there who have not played those kind of pvp sandbox games being made right now but they do play other pvp focused games, League of Legends the biggest of them and a lot those players play WoW and cross over into other mmorpgs but often find the pvp a tack on game play element that doesn't appeal to many pvp players.
Archeage drew in the interest of millions of players even with its open pvp gameplay and the pvp battles was the best thing about the game. Archeage would have kept a large amount of people who left it, if it did't have the game breaking flaws in its design and a horrible free to play model on top of it. Still Trion made a lot of money off the game with its alpha sales and sales from the first few months of launch in the western market. Black Desert will most likely be just as successful as Archeage at least at the start of its launch.
The market is there for a open pvp sandbox game to be successful, it just needs a game that is better designed and has a better payment model.
What about World of Tanks and League of legends? All pvp, rts, fps - Battlefield hardline, countrstrike - all pvp focused games without the retarded +50 PvE level grind to compete in PvP. And some mmo's use it just as an afterthought - a bonus end game content within the same package.
Latest example is ESO (Elder scrolls online) - they had lag issues in beta in Cyrodiil in March 2014, which is their PvP content. They didn't fix the lag after launch in April 2014, and they have the same issues now in february 2015. The engine is so old and outdated; 'it doesn't even have hit detection for arrows', and they will soon launch the game out to xbox and ps4...
I agree with some here either you create an mmo with PvE only, or you focus your game towards PvP without months of grinding to compete for end game gear & levels. If you don't have Non-Consensual PvP, it's boring as watching paint dry, but then again I'm from the pre trammel days in UO back in '97.
Originally posted by xMyth1 I agree with some here either you create an mmo with PvE only, or you focus your game towards PvP without months of grinding to compete for end game gear & levels. If you don't have Non-Consensual PvP, it's boring as watching paint dry, but then again I'm from the pre trammel days in UO back in '97.
This is well said.
While I dislike PvP, I am all for having MMOs being built around PvP. I also think there should be MMOs built around PvE. And finally, for those players that enjoy both, there should be PvP with PvE MMOs. Variety is the spice of life, right?
Back on topic, though, it seems like a mention of "sandbox" automatically infers Open World PvP. It does not have to be so.
Some PvP players seem to like talking about risk challenge. I often find myself wondering how many of these players actually seek these, or just other players when they have an obvious advantage, which is no risk or challenge at all. Many PvP players DO seek out tougher opponents in which to "test" their skills, but way too many of them are looking for an "easy kill", not risk.
EQ, a PvE based MMORPG had risk. Monsters could add into the fight. Higher level monsters (Hill Giants or Gryphons in East Commonlands) in lower level zones added risk. Even in the mid and upper levels, "blue con" monsters (5-10 levels lowers) would be tough, unlike today's monsters that may be higher level but still solo-able. Then, after the fight, when you sat down to rest and recover, monsters would often jump on your injured state.
But players complain. It is boring. It is too tough. And many of these players are the self proclaimed "hardcore PvP" players. Risk? I find myself highly doubting it.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
People that join PVP servers, then complain about PVP, fascinate me. Or my favorite: people who hate open world pvp but buy the game anyways, then bitch about it on the forums for years.
Comments
We shouldn't hone our definition of "successful game" to the point where only World of Warcraft is considered successful.
CCP went from a very small startup to a fairly large and profitable multinational corporation on the back of EVE Online (it certainly wasn't because of DUST).
They've possibly died down a bit in the past few years, i'm not sure. But in the world of MMORPGs what CCP did was without a doubt a success. Whether they can maintain that success after a decade is a different matter.
I dont pigeon hole things that way. I didnt say it was a success or a failure it is just what it is a game that has a cult following that has been around forever, and THAT more than anytihng is the reason it continues. Its no surprise the games wit the most hardcore fans are the game at least 10 years old. because they came out Pre WoW for the most part or right around the same time or at least close enough to not get swept up into the whole WoW phenomena.
EVE is a hybrid game, you can buy in game time with in game gold. So it isnt a pure subscription game. So that right there makes the numbers dubious. How many individuals does it have? No one can say for sure I doubt CCP even knows that since everyone masks IPs and their multiple accounts. But it has a decent following. So do a lot of other games.
But too often people denote 'success' with player population. Mostly because they think it is 'obvious'. But it isnt. Because some games have free players others have people that pay full price some have people that pay much less than full price. Even WoW with all its accolades doesnt have a lot of people who pay full price for their subscriptions.
Not to go off on a complete tangent but I think if these games that are being made these days allow their makers to not work a real job and pay their bills for a few year their makers would think they were a success no matter how the MMO player base defines them.
I picked the number because I thought it was common knowledge that they had ~500k subs, so I rounded it down a bit just to be safe. Either way, there are a lot of people who play EVE and don't live in high sec. It's a successful mmorpg with ow pvp.
It also isn't really a PvE game yet and I'm not sure it is ever going to be one. There are some things you can fight but it isn't really what anyone would think of as a PvE game at this point.
Personally I think every MMORPG should be designed with open world PvP in mind. Then they can turn PvP off on as many servers as the PvE crowd wants. That isn't really the reality of the genre right now so at the very least if you are going to make a PvE game flag a server or two as PvP enabled so everyone can enjoy it.
Battlegrounds and keep swap is PvP aimed at PvE players, they aren't aimed at the PvP crowd. Devs just need to realize this and give the choice to players. GW2 would have been so much better with a real PvP server. The PvE in that game was just bland and it could have used that interaction with others to make it interesting.
Surprisingly, even Guild Wars 1, which had the best MMORPG-style instanced PvP I've ever seen, had only 10% of its players playing PvP. And this too came from the developers themselves. They did everything they could to encourage people to get into PvP. It had several world championship tournaments with cash prizes and everything.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Open world PvP is a way to get cheap thrills from an otherwise bad-to-mediocre game. None of the games that have open world PvP haven't been all that great IMO.
Its like ketchup. It makes bad food taste better. But with good food, you don't miss it.
Then again, some people love ketchup...
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
How about TOR (which made $200M+ in 2013), or GW2 (which sells 3.5M copies in 2 weeks), or LoL?
CCP is successful enough to make some money and continue on one game. But everything else they did flopped, and there are plenty of companies more successful than CCP with more than one running game.
I do not share your view on open world PVP, however we do see eye to eye on ketchup.
Also, your analogy was admittedly quite hilarious. Well done.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
No, a game has to be designed with the target audience in mind.
If a huge majority of your target audience rejects open PvP, then designing your game around open PvP is horrible design.
You have to focus your resources on implementing the best gameplay possible for your main target audience. From the ground up. Anything else is suboptimal.
For this audience the PvP servers are the tacked on element, can't do it the other way around.
If you want to make a true open PvP game, you need to take the plunge and directly target that audience and focus on them.
In this point I agree to you: you can't tack on open PvP either, the game should be designed for it from the getgo.
I think the better question is when did it become unimportant to the consumer to have a deep fulfilling PVE experience in their sandbox. Back in MMO infancy games like DAOC and even SWG were working hard at perfecting pathing and AI to making the encounters more epic and fulfilling, now it seems all we see are the same set of mechanics.
Refugee from UO,EQ,AC,AC2,AO,DAOC,L2,SB,HZ,CoH,PT,EQ2,WoW,VG,SWG,EVE,WAR,DF,MO,AI,GA,LOTRO, SWTOR... Gw2 on Deck
WoW has kept millions of pvp players in well populated pvp servers for the past decade. The notion that pvp players are a minority is flat out wrong and usually comes from pve players who are 30 plus years in age who want to use old games before WoW (when the entire mmo industry itself was small) as examples on why open pvp sandbox wont work. There is a entire new market of younger players out there who have not played those kind of pvp sandbox games being made right now but they do play other pvp focused games, League of Legends the biggest of them and a lot those players play WoW and cross over into other mmorpgs but often find the pvp a tack on game play element that doesn't appeal to many pvp players.
Archeage drew in the interest of millions of players even with its open pvp gameplay and the pvp battles was the best thing about the game. Archeage would have kept a large amount of people who left it, if it did't have the game breaking flaws in its design and a horrible free to play model on top of it. Still Trion made a lot of money off the game with its alpha sales and sales from the first few months of launch in the western market. Black Desert will most likely be just as successful as Archeage at least at the start of its launch.
The market is there for a open pvp sandbox game to be successful, it just needs a game that is better designed and has a better payment model.
What about World of Tanks and League of legends? All pvp, rts, fps - Battlefield hardline, countrstrike - all pvp focused games without the retarded +50 PvE level grind to compete in PvP. And some mmo's use it just as an afterthought - a bonus end game content within the same package.
Latest example is ESO (Elder scrolls online) - they had lag issues in beta in Cyrodiil in March 2014, which is their PvP content. They didn't fix the lag after launch in April 2014, and they have the same issues now in february 2015. The engine is so old and outdated; 'it doesn't even have hit detection for arrows', and they will soon launch the game out to xbox and ps4...
I agree with some here either you create an mmo with PvE only, or you focus your game towards PvP without months of grinding to compete for end game gear & levels. If you don't have Non-Consensual PvP, it's boring as watching paint dry, but then again I'm from the pre trammel days in UO back in '97.
While I dislike PvP, I am all for having MMOs being built around PvP. I also think there should be MMOs built around PvE. And finally, for those players that enjoy both, there should be PvP with PvE MMOs. Variety is the spice of life, right?
Back on topic, though, it seems like a mention of "sandbox" automatically infers Open World PvP. It does not have to be so.
Some PvP players seem to like talking about risk challenge. I often find myself wondering how many of these players actually seek these, or just other players when they have an obvious advantage, which is no risk or challenge at all. Many PvP players DO seek out tougher opponents in which to "test" their skills, but way too many of them are looking for an "easy kill", not risk.
EQ, a PvE based MMORPG had risk. Monsters could add into the fight. Higher level monsters (Hill Giants or Gryphons in East Commonlands) in lower level zones added risk. Even in the mid and upper levels, "blue con" monsters (5-10 levels lowers) would be tough, unlike today's monsters that may be higher level but still solo-able. Then, after the fight, when you sat down to rest and recover, monsters would often jump on your injured state.
But players complain. It is boring. It is too tough. And many of these players are the self proclaimed "hardcore PvP" players. Risk? I find myself highly doubting it.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Don't most games have PVP and PVE servers?
People that join PVP servers, then complain about PVP, fascinate me. Or my favorite: people who hate open world pvp but buy the game anyways, then bitch about it on the forums for years.