so how much money is needed to make a indie MMO without crowdfunding?
It's not about money, you could make a small scale 2D MMO
the projects fail because they don't have any control, ppl run off with the cash, most good developers aren't on kickstarter, etc
making a successful game takes MORE than just money, it takes things like oversight and professionalism, neither of which can be found at kickstarter
besides, there are enough MMO to choose form, I don't know why people waste their money on kickstarter just to play an unfinished MMO
for every 1 succesful Kickstarter project, there are 1000 like these:
You arent really good at percetages. 43% is how many out of 1000?
"Successfully funded game projects have so far raised $26.4 million on Kickstarter, one of the highest totals out of all the categories, behind design, music, and film and video." (June 21, 2012)
Thats much less than 1 AAA game cost. If you delve into AAA MMOs thats only a fraction of those cost, and you can nicely see how those did (with only 1 exception)
And if you take Titan into consideration, just 1 publisher game lost more than if ANY game from KS never releases (as this also includes board and card games not just video games) lol
By your logic there are no good MMO developers anywhere.
But if we take smashing hits from KS like W2, POE, DOS (among others) KS is actually doing great
so how much money is needed to make a indie MMO without crowdfunding?
It's not about money, you could make a small scale 2D MMO
the projects fail because they don't have any control, ppl run off with the cash, most good developers aren't on kickstarter, etc
making a successful game takes MORE than just money, it takes things like oversight and professionalism, neither of which can be found at kickstarter
besides, there are enough MMO to choose form, I don't know why people waste their money on kickstarter just to play an unfinished MMO
for every 1 succesful Kickstarter project, there are 1000 like these:
You arent really good at percetages. 43% is how many out of 1000?
"Successfully funded game projects have so far raised $26.4 million on Kickstarter, one of the highest totals out of all the categories, behind design, music, and film and video." (June 21, 2012)
Thats much less than 1 AAA game cost. If you delve into AAA MMOs thats only a fraction of those cost, and you can nicely see how those did (with only 1 exception)
And if you take Titan into consideration, just 1 publisher game lost more than if ANY game from KS never releases (as this also includes board and card games not just video games) lol
By your logic there are no good MMO developers anywhere.
But if we take smashing hits from KS like W2, POE, DOS (among others) KS is actually doing great
Totally agree, 100%.
And as far as the link being quoted, IT WAS FROM 2012!!!!!! I've done a sampling of over 10% of the projects on KS and last updated at the end of 2014 and the delivery of projects to day was at around 66%. Oh, and maybe I'll do a sampling to see what the success rate is for projects which actually matter (like 100K or more). I'll bet it's pretty high, although even Chivalry was funded at 50K (as was Shards Online). Again, it's more about education than anything else. Some people might be surprised when their kid gets lead poisoning from a metal toy made in China. Others might say they expect it. As KS matures, people will become more educated on what's realistic and they'll make more informed choices.
As far as the number from Kiyoris, I suppose we could exaggerate about any number. I hear people, almost on a daily basis, telling others about how they "LITERALLY ate a billion bags of chips on the weekend." Unfortunately it seems that exaggeration wins out over reality and logic these days, THANKS INTERNET!!
I would be interested to learn how some people here think that a few guys in suits who don't give a dang about games but only want a cut of the profits are better at choosing what games you can choose from rather than a large crowd of gamers who expect no profits in return.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I would be interested to learn how some people here think that a few guys in suits who don't give a dang about games but only want a cut of the profits are better at choosing what games you can choose from rather than a large crowd of gamers who expect no profits in return.
Which "large crowd of gamers"? All we see is individual biased opinions from a very few people.
Players don't have market research data. The suits do. They maybe personally don't give a dang about the games themselves, but they do give a lot of dang about knowing what the people want. Because that's how you make money.
I would be interested to learn how some people here think that a few guys in suits who don't give a dang about games but only want a cut of the profits are better at choosing what games you can choose from rather than a large crowd of gamers who expect no profits in return.
Which "large crowd of gamers"? All we see is individual biased opinions from a very few people.
Players don't have market research data. The suits do. They maybe personally don't give a dang about the games themselves, but they do give a lot of dang about knowing what the people want. Because that's how you make money.
The group of gamers is a larger group than the group of suits.
Market research is very often flawed when it comes to creative projects but I understand you hold more faith in that then in gamers themselves.
I should note that the market research you are referring to is mostly interested in just separating you from your money not making a good game. aka....market research on pre-orders
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I would be interested to learn how some people here think that a few guys in suits who don't give a dang about games but only want a cut of the profits are better at choosing what games you can choose from rather than a large crowd of gamers who expect no profits in return.
Which "large crowd of gamers"? All we see is individual biased opinions from a very few people.
Players don't have market research data. The suits do. They maybe personally don't give a dang about the games themselves, but they do give a lot of dang about knowing what the people want. Because that's how you make money.
The group of gamers is a larger group than the group of suits.
Market research is very often flawed when it comes to creative projects but I understand you hold more faith in that then in gamers themselves.
I should note that the market research you are referring to is mostly interested in just separating you from your money not making a good game. aka....market research on pre-orders
How large the group is is totally irrelevant if you don't have a means to correctly sample their needs and wants.
Well we do have a means.. by seeing how successful the different games already made are. But that's what the suits are doing and you are against.
Are they always right? No.
Are there black sheep in the business? Yes. (like in any potentially lucrative business)
Are there market segments that are underserved and will that hopefully change? Yes. (but not with a 100+ mill budget game targeting a niche, that would be suicidal for the company)
To your third point:
Games are not fine art. Games are commercial art. Two very different things.
They are designed products. Form follows function. The function is to be successful in the chosen target audience.
There is no truly "free" artistic creativity involved. There is art (and thus creativity) involved, but the art is there to serve a specific function. There is also a lot of creativity in game design, but it is also goal oriented and will also try to fulfill it's set function. If the two don't do what they are supposed to but go off on wild "free" tangents, you end up with a badly designed product that will most likely fail.
This is also not a new thing, it has always been that way. For any designed product.
Pretty / Good / Cute / etc. (subjective views of a product) don't necessarily mean "well designed" and vice versa.
For instance, if you are not in the target audience of a game, you may very well hate it and think it's crap. (actually likely to happen) That doesn't mean it's objectively bad, it just simply wasn't made for your taste.
Thus, how "good" a game is is directly related to market research. A successful game is a good game. It is "good" for it's target audience, that's why it is successful.
How "good" the game feels to you personally is just your subjective opinion, based on your taste and preferences. We have to stick with the more objective metrics for quality.
Now, there are surely grey areas and devs that take milking it too far (nearly entering unethical business theritory), but those are outliers. They exist in any product category where money is to be made. It's up to the consumer to not fall for the stupid scams and tricks.
It's interesting that it's so easy to attack independent studios that want to maintain control of their product by not selling out to a publisher. All crowdfunding projects are not created equal. It's buyer beware - EXACTLY like buying an MMO put out by a big publisher. Crowdfunding and indie games are the only way we're going to see this genre bust out of the WoW clone syndrome it's been in for the last 10 years.
Originally posted by SEANMCADI would be interested to learn how some people here think that a few guys in suits who don't give a dang about games but only want a cut of the profits are better at choosing what games you can choose from rather than a large crowd of gamers who expect no profits in return.
Which "large crowd of gamers"? All we see is individual biased opinions from a very few people.Players don't have market research data. The suits do. They maybe personally don't give a dang about the games themselves, but they do give a lot of dang about knowing what the people want. Because that's how you make money.
The group of gamers is a larger group than the group of suits.Market research is very often flawed when it comes to creative projects but I understand you hold more faith in that then in gamers themselves.I should note that the market research you are referring to is mostly interested in just separating you from your money not making a good game. aka....market research on pre-orders
How large the group is is totally irrelevant
How can you say that the group of gamers is not that large and then turn around and say size doesn't matter?
how can I take you seriously with that level of inconsistency?
investment companies gather market data on how to make money, not how to make a good game.
investment companies are legally bound by their charter to make money.
private companies do not have to put money before profit.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Kickstarter has been great for single player games imo, we've gotten some good stuff.
As far as MMO's . . . I see a 0% success rate so far, what good (released) MMO's have come from kickstarter? PoE was crowdfunded but not through kickstarter.
Originally posted by SEANMCADI would be interested to learn how some people here think that a few guys in suits who don't give a dang about games but only want a cut of the profits are better at choosing what games you can choose from rather than a large crowd of gamers who expect no profits in return.
Which "large crowd of gamers"? All we see is individual biased opinions from a very few people.Players don't have market research data. The suits do. They maybe personally don't give a dang about the games themselves, but they do give a lot of dang about knowing what the people want. Because that's how you make money.
The group of gamers is a larger group than the group of suits.Market research is very often flawed when it comes to creative projects but I understand you hold more faith in that then in gamers themselves.I should note that the market research you are referring to is mostly interested in just separating you from your money not making a good game. aka....market research on pre-orders
How large the group is is totally irrelevant
How can you say that the group of gamers is not that large and then turn around and say size doesn't matter?
how can I take you seriously with that level of inconsistency?
Maybe try to quote entire sentences (even better full thoughts) instead of purposedly misquoting and misinterpreting to push an agenda? Very bad form.
In any case, I said the same thing both times. Maybe you misunderstood.
I didn't say the group is small, I said your sample is too small (and thus quite irrelevant) if you don't use the right methods. Totally different thing.
Kickstarter has been great for single player games imo, we've gotten some good stuff.
As far as MMO's . . . I see a 0% success rate so far, what good (released) MMO's have come from kickstarter? PoE was crowdfunded but not through kickstarter.
If you're talking a full-fledge AAA themepark MMO, I would agree since those are massive projects (that are going the way of the dinosaur, by the way illustrated by Blizzard cancelling Titan, Bioware cancelling Shadow Realms and the uncertainty behind EQNext).
Crowdfunding CAN work for more niche MMO's that don't require the massive expense or manpower to produce. These are the type of MMO's we're going to start seeing since going for mass market in this business hasn't been a very profitable endeavor (unless your title has Warcraft in it).
Kickstarter has been great for single player games imo, we've gotten some good stuff.
As far as MMO's . . . I see a 0% success rate so far, what good (released) MMO's have come from kickstarter? PoE was crowdfunded but not through kickstarter.
If you're talking a full-fledge AAA themepark MMO, I would agree since those are massive projects (that are going the way of the dinosaur, by the way illustrated by Blizzard cancelling Titan, Bioware cancelling Shadow Realms and the uncertainty behind EQNext).
Crowdfunding CAN work for more niche MMO's that don't require the massive expense or manpower to produce. These are the type of MMO's we're going to start seeing since going for mass market in this business hasn't been a very profitable endeavor (unless your title has Warcraft in it).
I agree.
It's good to see more smaller (but still professional) projects being in development.
Kickstarter has been great for single player games imo, we've gotten some good stuff.
As far as MMO's . . . I see a 0% success rate so far, what good (released) MMO's have come from kickstarter? PoE was crowdfunded but not through kickstarter.
If you're talking a full-fledge AAA themepark MMO, I would agree since those are massive projects (that are going the way of the dinosaur, by the way illustrated by Blizzard cancelling Titan, Bioware cancelling Shadow Realms and the uncertainty behind EQNext).
Crowdfunding CAN work for more niche MMO's that don't require the massive expense or manpower to produce. These are the type of MMO's we're going to start seeing since going for mass market in this business hasn't been a very profitable endeavor (unless your title has Warcraft in it).
Yes, that's the idea behind kickstarter. I'm not asking for AAA themeparks, I'm just asking what good MMO's have come from this process? And yes, released. It's an important distinction, everything is amazing while it's in development because people can project their desires onto an unfinished item. I can't think of any, doesn't mean there aren't any, but from my perspective it hasn't been very useful for MMO's.
Originally posted by SEANMCADI would be interested to learn how some people here think that a few guys in suits who don't give a dang about games but only want a cut of the profits are better at choosing what games you can choose from rather than a large crowd of gamers who expect no profits in return.
Which "large crowd of gamers"? All we see is individual biased opinions from a very few people.Players don't have market research data. The suits do. They maybe personally don't give a dang about the games themselves, but they do give a lot of dang about knowing what the people want. Because that's how you make money.
The group of gamers is a larger group than the group of suits.Market research is very often flawed when it comes to creative projects but I understand you hold more faith in that then in gamers themselves.I should note that the market research you are referring to is mostly interested in just separating you from your money not making a good game. aka....market research on pre-orders
How large the group is is totally irrelevant
How can you say that the group of gamers is not that large and then turn around and say size doesn't matter?how can I take you seriously with that level of inconsistency?
Maybe try to quote entire sentences (even better full thoughts) instead of purposedly misquoting and misinterpreting to push an agenda? Very bad form.In any case, I said the same thing both times. Maybe you misunderstood.I didn't say the group is small, I said your sample is too small (and thus quite irrelevant) if you don't use the right methods. Totally different thing.
no actually that is not what you said.
go back and read your very first response to me this morning.
here this might help #56 Which "large crowd of gamers"? All we see is individual biased opinions from a very few people.
#57 How large the group is is totally irrelevant if you don't have a means to correctly sample their needs and wants.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I would be interested to learn how some people here think that a few guys in suits who don't give a dang about games but only want a cut of the profits are better at choosing what games you can choose from rather than a large crowd of gamers who expect no profits in return.
Which "large crowd of gamers"? All we see is individual biased opinions from a very few people.
Players don't have market research data. The suits do. They maybe personally don't give a dang about the games themselves, but they do give a lot of dang about knowing what the people want. Because that's how you make money.
Thats funny. You know why weve been getting same game in different skin for last 10 years?
because suits didnt even need to research market. They pointed at WoW and said "i want that"
And how did all those games do? Failures that constantly raise cost of playing while reducing costs (read: layoffs and quality of service) because they cant get enough people on board.
Point is: suits are none the wiser, except when THEY lose money it amounts to more for 1 game than all money that went into KS combined
Imo crowdfunding is fine just the way it is, but those who throw money at it need to understand that it's a gamble. I've seen folks say it's a purchase, it's an investment, it's a way to show support...
Yeah, it's a gamble. Just think of it that way and you'll be fine. When the projects you back come around and you have alpha/beta/launch keys, you'll be delighted. I've supported a half dozen or so game projects as well as others, and have already received several alpha keys, one beta key and one launch key. Plus the results and updates for other successfully funded projects.
It's a lot of fun to see something come to life that you helped make possible. But I don't recommend making it into something more than it is, which is a gamble.
Kickstarter has been great for single player games imo, we've gotten some good stuff.
As far as MMO's . . . I see a 0% success rate so far, what good (released) MMO's have come from kickstarter? PoE was crowdfunded but not through kickstarter.
If you're talking a full-fledge AAA themepark MMO, I would agree since those are massive projects (that are going the way of the dinosaur, by the way illustrated by Blizzard cancelling Titan, Bioware cancelling Shadow Realms and the uncertainty behind EQNext).
Crowdfunding CAN work for more niche MMO's that don't require the massive expense or manpower to produce. These are the type of MMO's we're going to start seeing since going for mass market in this business hasn't been a very profitable endeavor (unless your title has Warcraft in it).
Yes, that's the idea behind kickstarter. I'm not asking for AAA themeparks, I'm just asking what good MMO's have come from this process? And yes, released. It's an important distinction, everything is amazing while it's in development because people can project their desires onto an unfinished item. I can't think of any, doesn't mean there aren't any, but from my perspective it hasn't been very useful for MMO's.
Well we didn't really have any professional projects that would fit the KS+MMORPG bill until recently. (I could have missed something ofcourse)
So for me the verdict is still out until this new batch of games actually releases. Some of them seem to be shaping up nicely.
As I said in another post...with no laws enaugh to protect costumers, crowfounding, kockstarters is another way to stole money from inocent people that dreams in developers promisses. From the start is a good idea to get off intermediaries like distributors, producers or whatever, but in the end......money is a virus contamining developers mind too. So we are unprotected. On other words.....why not free test a game before buy?......ahhhhh no, no lucrative enaugh....
Kickstarter has been great for single player games imo, we've gotten some good stuff.
As far as MMO's . . . I see a 0% success rate so far, what good (released) MMO's have come from kickstarter? PoE was crowdfunded but not through kickstarter.
If you're talking a full-fledge AAA themepark MMO, I would agree since those are massive projects (that are going the way of the dinosaur, by the way illustrated by Blizzard cancelling Titan, Bioware cancelling Shadow Realms and the uncertainty behind EQNext).
Crowdfunding CAN work for more niche MMO's that don't require the massive expense or manpower to produce. These are the type of MMO's we're going to start seeing since going for mass market in this business hasn't been a very profitable endeavor (unless your title has Warcraft in it).
Yes, that's the idea behind kickstarter. I'm not asking for AAA themeparks, I'm just asking what good MMO's have come from this process? And yes, released. It's an important distinction, everything is amazing while it's in development because people can project their desires onto an unfinished item. I can't think of any, doesn't mean there aren't any, but from my perspective it hasn't been very useful for MMO's.
Well we didn't really have any professional projects that would fit the KS+MMORPG bill until recently. (I could have missed something ofcourse)
So for me the verdict is still out until this new batch of games actually releases. Some of them seem to be shaping up nicely.
Yeah, I think I've come across maybe 20 or 30 doing a quick search (some actually released). That being said, probably half them are low-concept, simple projects that I wouldn't consider having any real risk to begin with. Obviously the bigger projects like The Repopulation, SC, CU, SotA, City of Titans, are all still outstanding. That's the group of games that I'd gauge how effective it is, though. Can this really be done? I don't even know if I'd lump The Repop in there, only because it's basically an unproven studio. That being said, it speaks a lot to their resilience and dedication that The Repop is where it is.
Kickstarter has been great for single player games imo, we've gotten some good stuff.
As far as MMO's . . . I see a 0% success rate so far, what good (released) MMO's have come from kickstarter? PoE was crowdfunded but not through kickstarter.
If you're talking a full-fledge AAA themepark MMO, I would agree since those are massive projects (that are going the way of the dinosaur, by the way illustrated by Blizzard cancelling Titan, Bioware cancelling Shadow Realms and the uncertainty behind EQNext).
Crowdfunding CAN work for more niche MMO's that don't require the massive expense or manpower to produce. These are the type of MMO's we're going to start seeing since going for mass market in this business hasn't been a very profitable endeavor (unless your title has Warcraft in it).
Yes, that's the idea behind kickstarter. I'm not asking for AAA themeparks, I'm just asking what good MMO's have come from this process? And yes, released. It's an important distinction, everything is amazing while it's in development because people can project their desires onto an unfinished item. I can't think of any, doesn't mean there aren't any, but from my perspective it hasn't been very useful for MMO's.
Well we didn't really have any professional projects that would fit the KS+MMORPG bill until recently. (I could have missed something ofcourse)
So for me the verdict is still out until this new batch of games actually releases. Some of them seem to be shaping up nicely.
Yeah, I think I've come across maybe 20 or 30 doing a quick search (some actually released). That being said, probably half them are low-concept, simple projects that I wouldn't consider having any real risk to begin with. Obviously the bigger projects like The Repopulation, SC, CU, SotA, City of Titans, are all still outstanding. That's the group of games that I'd gauge how effective it is, though. Can this really be done? I don't even know if I'd lump The Repop in there, only because it's basically an unproven studio. That being said, it speaks a lot to their resilience and dedication that The Repop is where it is.
Kickstarter has proven it can support the development of a great game. However, MMORPGs are a unique breed of game, presenting many unique challenges you won't find in other genres. I'll be very disappointed if CU and City of Titans turn out to be duds. DAoC and CoH were two of my favorite MMORPG experiences.
Kickstarter has been great for single player games imo, we've gotten some good stuff.
As far as MMO's . . . I see a 0% success rate so far, what good (released) MMO's have come from kickstarter? PoE was crowdfunded but not through kickstarter.
If you're talking a full-fledge AAA themepark MMO, I would agree since those are massive projects (that are going the way of the dinosaur, by the way illustrated by Blizzard cancelling Titan, Bioware cancelling Shadow Realms and the uncertainty behind EQNext).
Crowdfunding CAN work for more niche MMO's that don't require the massive expense or manpower to produce. These are the type of MMO's we're going to start seeing since going for mass market in this business hasn't been a very profitable endeavor (unless your title has Warcraft in it).
Yes, that's the idea behind kickstarter. I'm not asking for AAA themeparks, I'm just asking what good MMO's have come from this process? And yes, released. It's an important distinction, everything is amazing while it's in development because people can project their desires onto an unfinished item. I can't think of any, doesn't mean there aren't any, but from my perspective it hasn't been very useful for MMO's.
Well we didn't really have any professional projects that would fit the KS+MMORPG bill until recently. (I could have missed something ofcourse)
So for me the verdict is still out until this new batch of games actually releases. Some of them seem to be shaping up nicely.
Yeah, I think I've come across maybe 20 or 30 doing a quick search (some actually released). That being said, probably half them are low-concept, simple projects that I wouldn't consider having any real risk to begin with. Obviously the bigger projects like The Repopulation, SC, CU, SotA, City of Titans, are all still outstanding. That's the group of games that I'd gauge how effective it is, though. Can this really be done? I don't even know if I'd lump The Repop in there, only because it's basically an unproven studio. That being said, it speaks a lot to their resilience and dedication that The Repop is where it is.
Kickstarter has proven it can support the development of a great game. However, MMORPGs are a unique breed of game, presenting many unique challenges you won't find in other genres. I'll be very disappointed if CU and City of Titans turn out to be duds. DAoC and CoH were two of my favorite MMORPG experiences.
Yeah, Shards Online will be a big one for me. Biggest difference is that I feel like CU and CoT are much more grass-roots KS campaigns. They were much more conceptual in nature than Shards, or many other bigger titles (Crowfall included). So I think it's a testament to KS that games are going further these days to show us something compelling in order to get our money.
Kickstarter has been great for single player games imo, we've gotten some good stuff.
As far as MMO's . . . I see a 0% success rate so far, what good (released) MMO's have come from kickstarter? PoE was crowdfunded but not through kickstarter.
If you're talking a full-fledge AAA themepark MMO, I would agree since those are massive projects (that are going the way of the dinosaur, by the way illustrated by Blizzard cancelling Titan, Bioware cancelling Shadow Realms and the uncertainty behind EQNext).
Crowdfunding CAN work for more niche MMO's that don't require the massive expense or manpower to produce. These are the type of MMO's we're going to start seeing since going for mass market in this business hasn't been a very profitable endeavor (unless your title has Warcraft in it).
Yes, that's the idea behind kickstarter. I'm not asking for AAA themeparks, I'm just asking what good MMO's have come from this process? And yes, released. It's an important distinction, everything is amazing while it's in development because people can project their desires onto an unfinished item. I can't think of any, doesn't mean there aren't any, but from my perspective it hasn't been very useful for MMO's.
A short development cycle for an MMO is typically around 5 years. There are plenty of KS MMO's showing progress toward a release window, that's about the best you can hope for at this point as KS/crowdfunding hasn't been a thing for quite that long yet. I think that viewable progress at the very least speaks to it's usefulness for KS funded MMOs.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Kickstarter has been great for single player games imo, we've gotten some good stuff.
As far as MMO's . . . I see a 0% success rate so far, what good (released) MMO's have come from kickstarter? PoE was crowdfunded but not through kickstarter.
If you're talking a full-fledge AAA themepark MMO, I would agree since those are massive projects (that are going the way of the dinosaur, by the way illustrated by Blizzard cancelling Titan, Bioware cancelling Shadow Realms and the uncertainty behind EQNext).
Crowdfunding CAN work for more niche MMO's that don't require the massive expense or manpower to produce. These are the type of MMO's we're going to start seeing since going for mass market in this business hasn't been a very profitable endeavor (unless your title has Warcraft in it).
Yes, that's the idea behind kickstarter. I'm not asking for AAA themeparks, I'm just asking what good MMO's have come from this process? And yes, released. It's an important distinction, everything is amazing while it's in development because people can project their desires onto an unfinished item. I can't think of any, doesn't mean there aren't any, but from my perspective it hasn't been very useful for MMO's.
A short development cycle for an MMO is typically around 5 years. There are plenty of KS MMO's showing progress toward a release window, that's about the best you can hope for at this point as KS/crowdfunding hasn't been a thing for quite that long yet. I think that viewable progress at the very least speaks to it's usefulness for KS funded MMOs.
I think there are some compelling reasons why MMOs might become a thing of the past.
-Currently a 5+ year development cycle is going to be too long. By the time the game is done the technology and innovation in single/server player world will far surpass them.
-More and more we are starting to see single player games with MMO like multiplayer aspect to them.
-At the end of the day does anyone ever interact with more than 64 players in any given night? is there really a change in a players experience because there are thousands of players online at the same time in the same world? I think there is a threashold. where that number is I don't know but I think multiplayer games with servers can hit that number.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Kickstarter has been great for single player games imo, we've gotten some good stuff.
As far as MMO's . . . I see a 0% success rate so far, what good (released) MMO's have come from kickstarter? PoE was crowdfunded but not through kickstarter.
If you're talking a full-fledge AAA themepark MMO, I would agree since those are massive projects (that are going the way of the dinosaur, by the way illustrated by Blizzard cancelling Titan, Bioware cancelling Shadow Realms and the uncertainty behind EQNext).
Crowdfunding CAN work for more niche MMO's that don't require the massive expense or manpower to produce. These are the type of MMO's we're going to start seeing since going for mass market in this business hasn't been a very profitable endeavor (unless your title has Warcraft in it).
Yes, that's the idea behind kickstarter. I'm not asking for AAA themeparks, I'm just asking what good MMO's have come from this process? And yes, released. It's an important distinction, everything is amazing while it's in development because people can project their desires onto an unfinished item. I can't think of any, doesn't mean there aren't any, but from my perspective it hasn't been very useful for MMO's.
A short development cycle for an MMO is typically around 5 years. There are plenty of KS MMO's showing progress toward a release window, that's about the best you can hope for at this point as KS/crowdfunding hasn't been a thing for quite that long yet. I think that viewable progress at the very least speaks to it's usefulness for KS funded MMOs.
I think there are some compelling reasons why MMOs might become a thing of the past.
-Currently a 5+ year development cycle is going to be too long. By the time the game is done the technology and innovation in single/server player world will far surpass them.
-More and more we are starting to see single player games with MMO like multiplayer aspect to them.
-At the end of the day does anyone ever interact with more than 64 players in any given night? is there really a change in a players experience because there are thousands of players online at the same time in the same world? I think there is a threashold. where that number is I don't know but I think multiplayer games with servers can hit that number.
I would agree to a point. There was definitely a time when MMORPGs were a niche. I'm still a little gun-shy about admitting I play WoW. They rose in popularity to a point where it's "more normal" now. However, I think it will, ultimately, collapse in on itself and we'll be back to a niche again, at some point in the not so distant future.
That being said, since it is such a niche, I don't really think that the players care as much about the technology, it's more about the systems. I'm ultra-excited about Shards Online and you could argue that it has all the bleeding-edge tech of a 2nd gen iOS device. So I think that the tech might actually be less of an issue that we might think. I think there needs to be some level of upgraded graphics over the early 2000s, but as long as there are innovative systems and fun to be had, I think it'll attract players. At least players remotely interested in that niche.
Kickstarter has been great for single player games imo, we've gotten some good stuff.
As far as MMO's . . . I see a 0% success rate so far, what good (released) MMO's have come from kickstarter? PoE was crowdfunded but not through kickstarter.
If you're talking a full-fledge AAA themepark MMO, I would agree since those are massive projects (that are going the way of the dinosaur, by the way illustrated by Blizzard cancelling Titan, Bioware cancelling Shadow Realms and the uncertainty behind EQNext).
Crowdfunding CAN work for more niche MMO's that don't require the massive expense or manpower to produce. These are the type of MMO's we're going to start seeing since going for mass market in this business hasn't been a very profitable endeavor (unless your title has Warcraft in it).
Yes, that's the idea behind kickstarter. I'm not asking for AAA themeparks, I'm just asking what good MMO's have come from this process? And yes, released. It's an important distinction, everything is amazing while it's in development because people can project their desires onto an unfinished item. I can't think of any, doesn't mean there aren't any, but from my perspective it hasn't been very useful for MMO's.
A short development cycle for an MMO is typically around 5 years. There are plenty of KS MMO's showing progress toward a release window, that's about the best you can hope for at this point as KS/crowdfunding hasn't been a thing for quite that long yet. I think that viewable progress at the very least speaks to it's usefulness for KS funded MMOs.
I think there are some compelling reasons why MMOs might become a thing of the past.
-Currently a 5+ year development cycle is going to be too long. By the time the game is done the technology and innovation in single/server player world will far surpass them.
-More and more we are starting to see single player games with MMO like multiplayer aspect to them.
-At the end of the day does anyone ever interact with more than 64 players in any given night? is there really a change in a players experience because there are thousands of players online at the same time in the same world? I think there is a threashold. where that number is I don't know but I think multiplayer games with servers can hit that number.
I would agree to a point. There was definitely a time when MMORPGs were a niche. I'm still a little gun-shy about admitting I play WoW. They rose in popularity to a point where it's "more normal" now. However, I think it will, ultimately, collapse in on itself and we'll be back to a niche again, at some point in the not so distant future.
That being said, since it is such a niche, I don't really think that the players care as much about the technology, it's more about the systems. I'm ultra-excited about Shards Online and you could argue that it has all the bleeding-edge tech of a 2nd gen iOS device. So I think that the tech might actually be less of an issue that we might think. I think there needs to be some level of upgraded graphics over the early 2000s, but as long as there are innovative systems and fun to be had, I think it'll attract players. At least players remotely interested in that niche.
true
and I should be more clear when I say technology because what I really mean to say is innovation. innovation of game ideas. If it takes 5 years to get a public reaction of a new game idea/mechanic then those that can deploy faster are going to be ahead
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
You arent really good at percetages. 43% is how many out of 1000?
"Successfully funded game projects have so far raised $26.4 million on Kickstarter, one of the highest totals out of all the categories, behind design, music, and film and video." (June 21, 2012)
Thats much less than 1 AAA game cost. If you delve into AAA MMOs thats only a fraction of those cost, and you can nicely see how those did (with only 1 exception)
And if you take Titan into consideration, just 1 publisher game lost more than if ANY game from KS never releases (as this also includes board and card games not just video games) lol
By your logic there are no good MMO developers anywhere.
But if we take smashing hits from KS like W2, POE, DOS (among others) KS is actually doing great
Totally agree, 100%.
And as far as the link being quoted, IT WAS FROM 2012!!!!!! I've done a sampling of over 10% of the projects on KS and last updated at the end of 2014 and the delivery of projects to day was at around 66%. Oh, and maybe I'll do a sampling to see what the success rate is for projects which actually matter (like 100K or more). I'll bet it's pretty high, although even Chivalry was funded at 50K (as was Shards Online). Again, it's more about education than anything else. Some people might be surprised when their kid gets lead poisoning from a metal toy made in China. Others might say they expect it. As KS matures, people will become more educated on what's realistic and they'll make more informed choices.
As far as the number from Kiyoris, I suppose we could exaggerate about any number. I hear people, almost on a daily basis, telling others about how they "LITERALLY ate a billion bags of chips on the weekend." Unfortunately it seems that exaggeration wins out over reality and logic these days, THANKS INTERNET!!
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I would be interested to learn how some people here think that a few guys in suits who don't give a dang about games but only want a cut of the profits are better at choosing what games you can choose from rather than a large crowd of gamers who expect no profits in return.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Which "large crowd of gamers"? All we see is individual biased opinions from a very few people.
Players don't have market research data. The suits do. They maybe personally don't give a dang about the games themselves, but they do give a lot of dang about knowing what the people want. Because that's how you make money.
The group of gamers is a larger group than the group of suits.
Market research is very often flawed when it comes to creative projects but I understand you hold more faith in that then in gamers themselves.
I should note that the market research you are referring to is mostly interested in just separating you from your money not making a good game. aka....market research on pre-orders
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
How large the group is is totally irrelevant if you don't have a means to correctly sample their needs and wants.
Well we do have a means.. by seeing how successful the different games already made are. But that's what the suits are doing and you are against.
Are they always right? No.
Are there black sheep in the business? Yes. (like in any potentially lucrative business)
Are there market segments that are underserved and will that hopefully change? Yes. (but not with a 100+ mill budget game targeting a niche, that would be suicidal for the company)
To your third point:
Games are not fine art. Games are commercial art. Two very different things.
They are designed products. Form follows function. The function is to be successful in the chosen target audience.
There is no truly "free" artistic creativity involved. There is art (and thus creativity) involved, but the art is there to serve a specific function. There is also a lot of creativity in game design, but it is also goal oriented and will also try to fulfill it's set function. If the two don't do what they are supposed to but go off on wild "free" tangents, you end up with a badly designed product that will most likely fail.
This is also not a new thing, it has always been that way. For any designed product.
Pretty / Good / Cute / etc. (subjective views of a product) don't necessarily mean "well designed" and vice versa.
For instance, if you are not in the target audience of a game, you may very well hate it and think it's crap. (actually likely to happen) That doesn't mean it's objectively bad, it just simply wasn't made for your taste.
Thus, how "good" a game is is directly related to market research. A successful game is a good game. It is "good" for it's target audience, that's why it is successful.
How "good" the game feels to you personally is just your subjective opinion, based on your taste and preferences. We have to stick with the more objective metrics for quality.
Now, there are surely grey areas and devs that take milking it too far (nearly entering unethical business theritory), but those are outliers. They exist in any product category where money is to be made. It's up to the consumer to not fall for the stupid scams and tricks.
How can you say that the group of gamers is not that large and then turn around and say size doesn't matter?
how can I take you seriously with that level of inconsistency?
investment companies gather market data on how to make money, not how to make a good game.
investment companies are legally bound by their charter to make money.
private companies do not have to put money before profit.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Kickstarter has been great for single player games imo, we've gotten some good stuff.
As far as MMO's . . . I see a 0% success rate so far, what good (released) MMO's have come from kickstarter? PoE was crowdfunded but not through kickstarter.
Maybe try to quote entire sentences (even better full thoughts) instead of purposedly misquoting and misinterpreting to push an agenda? Very bad form.
In any case, I said the same thing both times. Maybe you misunderstood.
I didn't say the group is small, I said your sample is too small (and thus quite irrelevant) if you don't use the right methods. Totally different thing.
If you're talking a full-fledge AAA themepark MMO, I would agree since those are massive projects (that are going the way of the dinosaur, by the way illustrated by Blizzard cancelling Titan, Bioware cancelling Shadow Realms and the uncertainty behind EQNext).
Crowdfunding CAN work for more niche MMO's that don't require the massive expense or manpower to produce. These are the type of MMO's we're going to start seeing since going for mass market in this business hasn't been a very profitable endeavor (unless your title has Warcraft in it).
I agree.
It's good to see more smaller (but still professional) projects being in development.
Yes, that's the idea behind kickstarter. I'm not asking for AAA themeparks, I'm just asking what good MMO's have come from this process? And yes, released. It's an important distinction, everything is amazing while it's in development because people can project their desires onto an unfinished item. I can't think of any, doesn't mean there aren't any, but from my perspective it hasn't been very useful for MMO's.
go back and read your very first response to me this morning.
here this might help
#56
Which "large crowd of gamers"? All we see is individual biased opinions from a very few people.
#57
How large the group is is totally irrelevant if you don't have a means to correctly sample their needs and wants.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Thats funny. You know why weve been getting same game in different skin for last 10 years?
because suits didnt even need to research market. They pointed at WoW and said "i want that"
And how did all those games do? Failures that constantly raise cost of playing while reducing costs (read: layoffs and quality of service) because they cant get enough people on board.
Point is: suits are none the wiser, except when THEY lose money it amounts to more for 1 game than all money that went into KS combined
Imo crowdfunding is fine just the way it is, but those who throw money at it need to understand that it's a gamble. I've seen folks say it's a purchase, it's an investment, it's a way to show support...
Yeah, it's a gamble. Just think of it that way and you'll be fine. When the projects you back come around and you have alpha/beta/launch keys, you'll be delighted. I've supported a half dozen or so game projects as well as others, and have already received several alpha keys, one beta key and one launch key. Plus the results and updates for other successfully funded projects.
It's a lot of fun to see something come to life that you helped make possible. But I don't recommend making it into something more than it is, which is a gamble.
Well we didn't really have any professional projects that would fit the KS+MMORPG bill until recently. (I could have missed something ofcourse)
So for me the verdict is still out until this new batch of games actually releases. Some of them seem to be shaping up nicely.
Yeah, I think I've come across maybe 20 or 30 doing a quick search (some actually released). That being said, probably half them are low-concept, simple projects that I wouldn't consider having any real risk to begin with. Obviously the bigger projects like The Repopulation, SC, CU, SotA, City of Titans, are all still outstanding. That's the group of games that I'd gauge how effective it is, though. Can this really be done? I don't even know if I'd lump The Repop in there, only because it's basically an unproven studio. That being said, it speaks a lot to their resilience and dedication that The Repop is where it is.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Kickstarter has proven it can support the development of a great game. However, MMORPGs are a unique breed of game, presenting many unique challenges you won't find in other genres. I'll be very disappointed if CU and City of Titans turn out to be duds. DAoC and CoH were two of my favorite MMORPG experiences.
Yeah, Shards Online will be a big one for me. Biggest difference is that I feel like CU and CoT are much more grass-roots KS campaigns. They were much more conceptual in nature than Shards, or many other bigger titles (Crowfall included). So I think it's a testament to KS that games are going further these days to show us something compelling in order to get our money.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
A short development cycle for an MMO is typically around 5 years. There are plenty of KS MMO's showing progress toward a release window, that's about the best you can hope for at this point as KS/crowdfunding hasn't been a thing for quite that long yet. I think that viewable progress at the very least speaks to it's usefulness for KS funded MMOs.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I think there are some compelling reasons why MMOs might become a thing of the past.
-Currently a 5+ year development cycle is going to be too long. By the time the game is done the technology and innovation in single/server player world will far surpass them.
-More and more we are starting to see single player games with MMO like multiplayer aspect to them.
-At the end of the day does anyone ever interact with more than 64 players in any given night? is there really a change in a players experience because there are thousands of players online at the same time in the same world? I think there is a threashold. where that number is I don't know but I think multiplayer games with servers can hit that number.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I would agree to a point. There was definitely a time when MMORPGs were a niche. I'm still a little gun-shy about admitting I play WoW. They rose in popularity to a point where it's "more normal" now. However, I think it will, ultimately, collapse in on itself and we'll be back to a niche again, at some point in the not so distant future.
That being said, since it is such a niche, I don't really think that the players care as much about the technology, it's more about the systems. I'm ultra-excited about Shards Online and you could argue that it has all the bleeding-edge tech of a 2nd gen iOS device. So I think that the tech might actually be less of an issue that we might think. I think there needs to be some level of upgraded graphics over the early 2000s, but as long as there are innovative systems and fun to be had, I think it'll attract players. At least players remotely interested in that niche.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
true
and I should be more clear when I say technology because what I really mean to say is innovation. innovation of game ideas. If it takes 5 years to get a public reaction of a new game idea/mechanic then those that can deploy faster are going to be ahead
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me