Where did it come from that a sandbox needs to have PVP ganking ?
The only comment I've ever seen about this was someone saying that sandboxes needed something to halt growth and that was other player conflict at random times.
I remember playing Runescape for years and you weren't forced to fight and the world didn't fall apart. I didn't even reach the max level in everything without resistance. Same for Wurm Online, they had PVE servers where people just built and grew their characters and mobs were dangerous enough, you didn't need players around attacking to have concern about losing things.
I'm seeing a lot of new games that seem to equate a sandbox with a need for PVP. Not just PVP but full-loot PVP. It's becoming a trend, read about a game, catch someone saying it's PVP all gank all the time and I'm really wondering why people think that the two need to be coupled together.
I've seen what happens in full-loot gank games and it's usually just people outnumbering one guy carrying herbs or wood they cut. It's just 5 people who take things from new people constantly until they run them off. I don't get it - why aren't people trying to make a sandbox that doesn't force PVP. There must be some book out there putting the two together or is it just the way a psychopath imagines a game - everyone is only there to be a loot box.
Don't get me wrong, I PVP in every game I play - it's my end-game with not liking dungeons but I never felt comfortable with full-loot or ganking people over and over trying to keep them stuck in a spot. It's not PVP itself that rubs me wrong.
I don't know and it's really irritating. I love OWPvP, just not PvP that's so punshing as all these games are making it. I don't want to loose loot or gear or anything. I am ok with a corpse run, or XP loss or durability loss that I can pay a vendor to deal with. I also like having certain places be safe zones or heavily guarded so I can hang around somewhere or afk if need be. I wish a sandbox came out that catered to that audience - and didn't have gear that requires Korean style grinding and enhancement (although it has to be quality action combat - sorry I'm a combat snob). Just let me pay you to have some fucking fun, why is that so hard to do? Why do developers think we want to repeatedly punish ourselves?
Somes have fun do sandbox stuffs , others just want come and kill and loot and survive with less skilled players
5v1? how matter if its mean profit to group?
At momment you signup/buy sandbox game accepty in fact you going get ganked / grief (and grief its another stupid term)
if game allowed and you dont like
"ADAPT OR QUIT" (often used in entropia)
No one is trying to force an already exiting game to turn PvE focused. What the OP and people like me are asking is why not CREATE NEW PVE SANDBOXES.
Because Devs want to make money, not to make a small minority of people happy.
If devs are looking to make money, creating a MMO is a terrible idea...
I'm pretty sure I didnt say if devs want to make money, they should make an MMO. But if they are making an MMO and want to make money, it's definitely not a sandbox MMO. They ain't stupid.
I thought the point to make a fun game first then when people enjoy the game then the money follows. I'm not implying they shouldn't care about money but they shouldn't sacrifice the soul of a game just to appease group of players that's just going to leave in 2 months when the next new shiny PvE themepark is released.
Consequences come from other players interacting with the actions of other players. When you insert artificial consequences that stop an action without the consent of the people you have a form of tyranny!
Rules and order =/= tyranny as much as freedom =/= anarchy.
You are missing something though. Rules only work with the consent of the people. If you have 'rules and order' without consent it does equal a form of tyranny.
In reply to...
"Can you name me one law (in real life) that prevents a crime? There are none. What laws do, is say, "If you do THAT, then THIS will happen to you." The option is still, and always will be there.
Are you an Anarchist, by any chance?"
I am only arguing that the only reason we have any laws to speak of is that at some point people consented to such laws. The whole John Locke etc consent. Laws can lessen crime only to the extent that people consent to them.
In that vein I apply labor to another person's work and it has value.
Somes have fun do sandbox stuffs , others just want come and kill and loot and survive with less skilled players
5v1? how matter if its mean profit to group?
At momment you signup/buy sandbox game accepty in fact you going get ganked / grief (and grief its another stupid term)
if game allowed and you dont like
"ADAPT OR QUIT" (often used in entropia)
No one is trying to force an already exiting game to turn PvE focused. What the OP and people like me are asking is why not CREATE NEW PVE SANDBOXES.
Because Devs want to make money, not to make a small minority of people happy.
If devs are looking to make money, creating a MMO is a terrible idea...
I'm pretty sure I didnt say if devs want to make money, they should make an MMO. But if they are making an MMO and want to make money, it's definitely not a sandbox MMO. They ain't stupid.
I thought the point to make a fun game first then when people enjoy the game then the money follows. I'm not implying they shouldn't care about money but they shouldn't sacrifice the soul of a game just to appease group of players that's just going to leave in 2 months when the next new shiny PvE themepark is released.
Uh....what makes you think they don't put their heart and soul into making the game to make as much money as they can? Because you said so? Because the game didn't meet your expectations the game had no soul?
There is nothing wrong with playing more than one game. Why limit yourself of entertainment when there are so many options out there now. It doesn't make those games any less quality than any game in the past. I would say they are much more polished and much more quality games than those old games ever was. That's my opinion. I wish I had more than just EQ, WOW, FFXI back in the day. This sticking to just one game is just idiotic if you ask me.
In response to the original question: Because sandbox is about freedom and that means open world pvp is a natural fit for sandbox games. For some reason people on these boards have been futilely trying to argue the opposite.
Originally posted by Holophonist In response to the original question: Because sandbox is about freedom and that means open world pvp is a natural fit for sandbox games. For some reason people on these boards have been futilely trying to argue the opposite.
It seems to me and I could be wrong, but a lot of the upcoming games are either PvP focused or offer it in some way as part of the game. It almost seems that recently, any developer of an MMO is afraid to ignore the PvP player.
Great!
The ball is in the PvP players court now. I am curious what they will do with it.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Originally posted by Holophonist In response to the original question: Because sandbox is about freedom and that means open world pvp is a natural fit for sandbox games. For some reason people on these boards have been futilely trying to argue the opposite.
I am all for open world PvP but only if you have to actively consent to it, i.e. flagging yourself.
There arent any games that do well that have a forced PvP map let alone the whole world.
PvP and ganking (which is what PvP turns into eventually) kills any sort of 'sandbox' feel to games. Because it is the over riding mechanic of the game. You can have all the crafting and building and exploring you want but if all that involves risking getting killed (and looted or losing items or durability or advancement) it takes away from everything the game has to offer.
If the chances of me getting to the top of a mountain that may or may not have something like a cool crafting item, station, NPC, or just a nice view are low then why bother?
Sandbox just means you have options, but if all those options are marred because youre going ot get gang raped every time you leave a safe spot that means you have no options and makes the whole 'sand box' moniker a misnomer at best and basically a lie.
Where did it come from that a sandbox needs to have PVP ganking ?
To me the only games that really should be called "sandboxes" are those games where you can do and create things not pre-scripted and pre-created by the devs. That definition, rather than the common-around-here "It's only a sandbox if you can kill anyone anywhere" (I must be missing all the sandbox murder cases that crop up), seems much more appropriate.
Tellingly, in those sandboxes -- Second Life, Minecraft, et al -- PvP is anywhere from unsupported to nonexistent.
I never understood why people are so opposed to having PVP in an MMO. Why play an MMO at all if your main goal is to play it like a single player rpg? Most mmos have terrible lore and the story is usually poorly conveyed through out the game. There are so many amazing offline or co-op rpgs out there that are totally better at story telling than even the best MMOs. So really if your main style of game play is a more PVE type player you have much better options out there than playing a PVP focused MMO, or you could always go play WoW which is pretty much like a single player rpg. Stop complaining about the new games that are being designed to try to break away from all these terribly boring WoW clones that have invaded the MMO gaming scene.
Originally posted by Holophonist In response to the original question: Because sandbox is about freedom and that means open world pvp is a natural fit for sandbox games. For some reason people on these boards have been futilely trying to argue the opposite.
WHat PVP game really offers real freedom though? You may shed the training wheels many themeparks place on you (questing).. instead your playtime is governed by those around you, you still have no real freedom to play as you want. Your gaming experience is what the guy next to you decides it is, if he/she decides it means fighting him/her off, that's what it will be.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Do people ever stop to ask themselves why carebears are playing a full open world PVP game in the first place? They try to make it seem like the second that one of these kinds of games releases that there will be hundreds or thousands of completely docile and brain dead defenseless children (who average probably around age 25-30) who suddenly buy the games against their will and are forced to install them on their computer and be online 15 hours a day and perpetually get ganked by the refuse of society. This is the picture that is painted, I just find it odd nobody actually considers how ridiculous the idea is.
You play one of these games with the knowledge of what can happen, those "carebears" are just PVPers who aren't very good. They would much rather be on the other side of the fence, in nearly all cases. You don't move to a warzone to farm cabbages.
Though there are some of us who enjoy the challenge and very much would like to grow cabbages in a hostile place and have to fend off anti social scum from our land. If you're not one of these kind of people, and take no enjoyment from being a character in a world where a lot of bad things can happen to you and around you, then play something safer that holds your hand and protects you.
I for one like the feeling of not being safe, because it's a game and I need that level of excitement and fear in them to make it worth my while to really get invested into an online world. Without it they don't feel like worlds, they feel like amusement parks. Those are fun, but if you lived at Disneyland your whole life, you'd get bored eventually.
It's been brought up plenty of times but it falls on deaf ears.
It doesn't fall on deaf ears. It's just recognized for the straw man it is that tries to frame the discussion as good PVPer's opinions vs. bad PVPer's opinions.
All these other mentions of Disneyland, rides, and other themepark cliches in the discussion are just trolling from people that, frankly, I don't believe are even good PVPers... pretty easy to sound tough in a forum.
Very odd that you would start a post stating that the argument is a strawman then you use the exact same strawman argument. So you've identified the problem, you just can't do anything about it?
You're no doubt a terrible PVPer if this is your cognitive thought process at work. Pretty easy to sound tough on a forum.
I never understood why people are so opposed to having PVP in an MMO. Why play an MMO at all if your main goal is to play it like a single player rpg? Most mmos have terrible lore and the story is usually poorly conveyed through out the game. There are so many amazing offline or co-op rpgs out there that are totally better at story telling than even the best MMOs. So really if your main style of game play is a more PVE type player you have much better options out there than playing a PVP focused MMO, or you could always go play WoW which is pretty much like a single player rpg. Stop complaining about the new games that are being designed to try to break away from all these terribly boring WoW clones that have invaded the MMO gaming scene.
I'm not opposed to having it in an MMORPG, since casuals deserve a type of PVP that doesn't demand as much skill of them.
But I do find it weird that (a) you think no fun can be had playing MMORPGs solo when so much evidence exists of people doing that and (b) you completely ignore group-based PVE (which is nearly as popular.)
Also, my computer is pretty nice still, but DA:Inquisition crashes like crazy.
Also, none of this addresses the fact that the OP's request is still pretty valid. Personally I'd like to see a sort of Haven & Hearth style game, but done with the gathering/crafting variety of Don't Starve or ATITD (because if the act of crafting isn't engaging and fun and full of interesting decisions, the game is gonna be a lot of bland downtime.) PVP really only gets in the way with these sorts of games and it's far more interesting to have rolling PVE challenges (and ones like Don't Starve's simple survival are alright too, but can easily get a little degenerative if you have to grind too many cycles on simple survival.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
why, why, because sandbox is about realism and immersion, [...]
MMO PvP is generally about as unrealistic as it is possible to get. Kill without consequence, die and respawn seconds later none the worse for wear.
There is nothing whatsoever realistic about "sandbox" PvP, to claim otherwise is laughable in the extreme.
Thats what the problem really boils down to. If there isn't a system of justice, open world pvp doesn't work properly.
My most memorable pvp experience was EQ classic era fighting over the progression and territory surrounding dungeons and portals. EQ pvp was amazing on rallos zek because of the justice system. Back then if you randomly killed players, the entire server heard of it and you would soon be ostracized. That meant progressing in the game became extremely hard where you had to group with other pariahs and be hunted by all the anti-pk guilds on the server. There was still plenty of sanctioned pvp from guilds warring, but there was law and order. People that wanted to gank players rolled alts, mostly lowbies and did it without anyone but your real life friends knowing. Were people to find out who your alt was, your main character would essentially become a criminal, losing guild membership.
The new MMOs have created trial and jailing systems which I think is the easiest way to go about it today. Age of Wushu was a great system and to a lesser extent ArcheAge which had very light punishments that almost made it irrelevant. The idea is the way to go though.
If there isn't laws and justice in an MMO, pvp can become a destructive, unrealistic, immersion breaking mechanic for a lot of people.
Originally posted by Iselin Because when you give people total freedom, they fight... way to go, human race!
Kids play in sandboxes for hours without fighting, so there's that. Our instinct is survival and community not killing one another as that is a threat to survival.
only if the sandbox is big enough and each has its own toys. if that's not the case, then there's screaming, tears and smashed sand castles ... I do have kids, I know :-)
Oh I have kids too - smashed sand castles happen but they are rebuilt sometimes together. What it doesn't lead to is killings. Cooperation among people is a lot more natural than killing - otherwise none of us would be here. My point remains - PvE sandbox games exist and are just as viable as PvP sandbox games.
Cooperation within families or extended families (tribes) is indeed pretty natural, although not absolutely so. The problems usually begin when an outsider or stranger tries to play in your sandbox.... or when a member of the tribe is having a bad day. That's where rules and laws or parents/child minders come in: to enforce civilized behaviour in situations where you may not instinctively feel like being civilized.I'm not disagreeing with you that PVE sandboxes exist; they obviously do. But I think the fact that so many think that those are not "real" sandboxes is pretty telling.A lot of people seem to equate sandbox with an absence of rules or laws. They think anarchy... and they feel that anything that the developer does to limit or prevent them from doing something they want to do invalidates the sandbox designation. Safe zones, designated PVP times or zones, no loot PVP or any other rules that prevent them from going postal whenever and wherever they feel like it is seen as "not sandbox."
Standing ovation !!! Finaly one reasonable person in this thread.
It must be the relatively low development cost of such a game. Developing pve content is more expensive than just creating a game where players just go after each other and that is the content.
Minecraft...?
Your reasoning is utterly flawed. Manhours spent on development of PVE content cost the same as development of same amount of PVP content.
There are designs that are simply more budget friendly - for PVP and PVE games.
When it comes to MMOs tho, the traditional MMO with persistent worlds, no game can be very successful without sufficient content, being it PVP or PVE game.
Your reading comprehension is utterly flawed.
I didn't say anything about "developing pvp content." Why don't you try to read it again.
It must be the relatively low development cost of such a game. Developing pve content is more expensive than just creating a game where players just go after each other and that is the content.
Lower dev costs would mean the game has to earn less to recoup those costs and turn a profit, either through box or cash shop sales. These games always become "niche" so that's why I guess they are able to make their money back without having a lot of players for a long period of time.
Your much closer to the truth in this post.
+1
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Somes have fun do sandbox stuffs , others just want come and kill and loot and survive with less skilled players
5v1? how matter if its mean profit to group?
At momment you signup/buy sandbox game accepty in fact you going get ganked / grief (and grief its another stupid term)
if game allowed and you dont like
"ADAPT OR QUIT" (often used in entropia)
No one is trying to force an already exiting game to turn PvE focused. What the OP and people like me are asking is why not CREATE NEW PVE SANDBOXES.
Because Devs want to make money, not to make a small minority of people happy.
If devs are looking to make money, creating a MMO is a terrible idea...
I'm pretty sure I didnt say if devs want to make money, they should make an MMO. But if they are making an MMO and want to make money, it's definitely not a sandbox MMO. They ain't stupid.
I thought the point to make a fun game first then when people enjoy the game then the money follows. I'm not implying they shouldn't care about money but they shouldn't sacrifice the soul of a game just to appease group of players that's just going to leave in 2 months when the next new shiny PvE themepark is released.
Uh....what makes you think they don't put their heart and soul into making the game to make as much money as they can? Because you said so? Because the game didn't meet your expectations the game had no soul?
There is nothing wrong with playing more than one game. Why limit yourself of entertainment when there are so many options out there now. It doesn't make those games any less quality than any game in the past. I would say they are much more polished and much more quality games than those old games ever was. That's my opinion. I wish I had more than just EQ, WOW, FFXI back in the day. This sticking to just one game is just idiotic if you ask me.
I think you got my point confused.
Ill word it in another way. Anyone that takes time and money to create a movie is definitely going to work hard, I have no doubt. If "movie developers" want to create a film that's a powerful and inspiring drama then that's exactly what they should make. They shouldn't listen to the crowd that says their film won't make money because it's not an action film. However, the minute these "movie developers" cave and start adding super heroes and explosions, at that point, not only has it just become a bad film but it lost it's soul in the process.
I have no problem with playing multiple games. At one point I was playing and paying for EQ, SWG and Daoc, those were good times. Today's gamers aren't willing to pay for games so if the devs target audience is PvP they should just stick to their target and just make a fun game. The money will come if it's a good game...
Comments
I don't know and it's really irritating. I love OWPvP, just not PvP that's so punshing as all these games are making it. I don't want to loose loot or gear or anything. I am ok with a corpse run, or XP loss or durability loss that I can pay a vendor to deal with. I also like having certain places be safe zones or heavily guarded so I can hang around somewhere or afk if need be. I wish a sandbox came out that catered to that audience - and didn't have gear that requires Korean style grinding and enhancement (although it has to be quality action combat - sorry I'm a combat snob). Just let me pay you to have some fucking fun, why is that so hard to do? Why do developers think we want to repeatedly punish ourselves?
I thought the point to make a fun game first then when people enjoy the game then the money follows. I'm not implying they shouldn't care about money but they shouldn't sacrifice the soul of a game just to appease group of players that's just going to leave in 2 months when the next new shiny PvE themepark is released.
You are missing something though. Rules only work with the consent of the people. If you have 'rules and order' without consent it does equal a form of tyranny.
In reply to...
"Can you name me one law (in real life) that prevents a crime? There are none. What laws do, is say, "If you do THAT, then THIS will happen to you." The option is still, and always will be there.
Are you an Anarchist, by any chance?"
I am only arguing that the only reason we have any laws to speak of is that at some point people consented to such laws. The whole John Locke etc consent. Laws can lessen crime only to the extent that people consent to them.
In that vein I apply labor to another person's work and it has value.
Uh....what makes you think they don't put their heart and soul into making the game to make as much money as they can? Because you said so? Because the game didn't meet your expectations the game had no soul?
There is nothing wrong with playing more than one game. Why limit yourself of entertainment when there are so many options out there now. It doesn't make those games any less quality than any game in the past. I would say they are much more polished and much more quality games than those old games ever was. That's my opinion. I wish I had more than just EQ, WOW, FFXI back in the day. This sticking to just one game is just idiotic if you ask me.
My gaming blog
It seems to me and I could be wrong, but a lot of the upcoming games are either PvP focused or offer it in some way as part of the game. It almost seems that recently, any developer of an MMO is afraid to ignore the PvP player.
Great!
The ball is in the PvP players court now. I am curious what they will do with it.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
yes .. they have figured that out. That is why blizz killed their new MMO, and there are few AAA MMO development.
(and we are talking about the old ancient type of MMOs .. MOBAs are still making money).
I am all for open world PvP but only if you have to actively consent to it, i.e. flagging yourself.
There arent any games that do well that have a forced PvP map let alone the whole world.
PvP and ganking (which is what PvP turns into eventually) kills any sort of 'sandbox' feel to games. Because it is the over riding mechanic of the game. You can have all the crafting and building and exploring you want but if all that involves risking getting killed (and looted or losing items or durability or advancement) it takes away from everything the game has to offer.
If the chances of me getting to the top of a mountain that may or may not have something like a cool crafting item, station, NPC, or just a nice view are low then why bother?
Sandbox just means you have options, but if all those options are marred because youre going ot get gang raped every time you leave a safe spot that means you have no options and makes the whole 'sand box' moniker a misnomer at best and basically a lie.
MMO PvP is generally about as unrealistic as it is possible to get. Kill without consequence, die and respawn seconds later none the worse for wear.
There is nothing whatsoever realistic about "sandbox" PvP, to claim otherwise is laughable in the extreme.
To me the only games that really should be called "sandboxes" are those games where you can do and create things not pre-scripted and pre-created by the devs. That definition, rather than the common-around-here "It's only a sandbox if you can kill anyone anywhere" (I must be missing all the sandbox murder cases that crop up), seems much more appropriate.
Tellingly, in those sandboxes -- Second Life, Minecraft, et al -- PvP is anywhere from unsupported to nonexistent.
I never understood why people are so opposed to having PVP in an MMO. Why play an MMO at all if your main goal is to play it like a single player rpg? Most mmos have terrible lore and the story is usually poorly conveyed through out the game. There are so many amazing offline or co-op rpgs out there that are totally better at story telling than even the best MMOs. So really if your main style of game play is a more PVE type player you have much better options out there than playing a PVP focused MMO, or you could always go play WoW which is pretty much like a single player rpg. Stop complaining about the new games that are being designed to try to break away from all these terribly boring WoW clones that have invaded the MMO gaming scene.
WHat PVP game really offers real freedom though? You may shed the training wheels many themeparks place on you (questing).. instead your playtime is governed by those around you, you still have no real freedom to play as you want. Your gaming experience is what the guy next to you decides it is, if he/she decides it means fighting him/her off, that's what it will be.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Very odd that you would start a post stating that the argument is a strawman then you use the exact same strawman argument. So you've identified the problem, you just can't do anything about it?
You're no doubt a terrible PVPer if this is your cognitive thought process at work. Pretty easy to sound tough on a forum.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
I'm not opposed to having it in an MMORPG, since casuals deserve a type of PVP that doesn't demand as much skill of them.
But I do find it weird that (a) you think no fun can be had playing MMORPGs solo when so much evidence exists of people doing that and (b) you completely ignore group-based PVE (which is nearly as popular.)
Also, my computer is pretty nice still, but DA:Inquisition crashes like crazy.
Also, none of this addresses the fact that the OP's request is still pretty valid. Personally I'd like to see a sort of Haven & Hearth style game, but done with the gathering/crafting variety of Don't Starve or ATITD (because if the act of crafting isn't engaging and fun and full of interesting decisions, the game is gonna be a lot of bland downtime.) PVP really only gets in the way with these sorts of games and it's far more interesting to have rolling PVE challenges (and ones like Don't Starve's simple survival are alright too, but can easily get a little degenerative if you have to grind too many cycles on simple survival.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Thats what the problem really boils down to. If there isn't a system of justice, open world pvp doesn't work properly.
My most memorable pvp experience was EQ classic era fighting over the progression and territory surrounding dungeons and portals. EQ pvp was amazing on rallos zek because of the justice system. Back then if you randomly killed players, the entire server heard of it and you would soon be ostracized. That meant progressing in the game became extremely hard where you had to group with other pariahs and be hunted by all the anti-pk guilds on the server. There was still plenty of sanctioned pvp from guilds warring, but there was law and order. People that wanted to gank players rolled alts, mostly lowbies and did it without anyone but your real life friends knowing. Were people to find out who your alt was, your main character would essentially become a criminal, losing guild membership.
The new MMOs have created trial and jailing systems which I think is the easiest way to go about it today. Age of Wushu was a great system and to a lesser extent ArcheAge which had very light punishments that almost made it irrelevant. The idea is the way to go though.
If there isn't laws and justice in an MMO, pvp can become a destructive, unrealistic, immersion breaking mechanic for a lot of people.
Because for them , PVP mean PK and the PK trolls are disease for any MMO.
Standing ovation !!! Finaly one reasonable person in this thread.
Your reading comprehension is utterly flawed.
I didn't say anything about "developing pvp content." Why don't you try to read it again.
Maybe follow your own advice...?
+1
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I think you got my point confused.
Ill word it in another way. Anyone that takes time and money to create a movie is definitely going to work hard, I have no doubt. If "movie developers" want to create a film that's a powerful and inspiring drama then that's exactly what they should make. They shouldn't listen to the crowd that says their film won't make money because it's not an action film. However, the minute these "movie developers" cave and start adding super heroes and explosions, at that point, not only has it just become a bad film but it lost it's soul in the process.
I have no problem with playing multiple games. At one point I was playing and paying for EQ, SWG and Daoc, those were good times. Today's gamers aren't willing to pay for games so if the devs target audience is PvP they should just stick to their target and just make a fun game. The money will come if it's a good game...