First of all, the amount of money it takes to make an MMO is considerably less than what has been spent in recent years. EQ for instance was made with only a few million.
Agreed. The whole point of the technology is to allow more to be done with less. I would hope that making an MMORPG would cost less with time as better tools come out to do more of the work for you.
I don't think thats how it actually works, otherwise we wouldn't see game installations getting bigger all the time, truth is, the more complex a game is, the more complex the coding, and this especially applies to the game engine, not just the pixel count of the graphics etc. If it was about doing more with less, then games would not be continually increasing in size. As for the tools, MMO dev's tend to create their own game engines, buying someone elses is fraught with issues, which also include, drastically increased costs, same with art assets, you can buy someone elses, or you can create your own. Short answer, it all costs and it really doesn't get cheaper.
Not so sure size reflects anything. You could go back to a classic EQ install and refurbish all the textures and other assets increasing the size by 5-10x. That doesn't necessarily mean it takes 5-10x longer to create them. The concept art would be the same, and honestly the tools with which they're created are much more streamlined today than 15 years ago.
The real problems today are the amount of fluff and eye-candy that have to be produced to keep players around in a game with a fundamentally flawed design, and the amount the creators of said fluff cost to employ.
I agree. What costs a fortune is being impractical. Like: "I can't understand the documentation for this engine, I'll just write my own." The open source community long ago got over the "Not Invented Here" hubris.
The most important thing I would expect to get better over time is the art asset development pipeline. Better tools allowing content creators to do more with less. This allows each developer to create more content in the same amount of time. Thus a larger install with the same size team.
Also, I don't think the size of the install necessarily reflects more content. If I double the size of textures on a model it would come close quadrupling the size of the exact same content.
Long odds is better than no odds. Pantheon only MMO in development that is even in the friggin realm of what an MMO should be. If it doesnt get made, im no worse off than i am now. If it does, then its awesome.
Usually, when people gamble, long odds are far worse than no odds as you don't have to lose any money if you don't participate.
Except we're not talking about gambling, nor actually gambling. If i were an investor looking for a return on my money than yes, you would be absolutely correct. But we arent.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
There are ONLY two ways i would EVER invest into any game,either buying shares or by spending money on it when it is finished.I would not give one red cent to any developer so he can sit back in his lazy boy chair sipping wine in front of his 75 inch tv screen.
If their ideas are so great,let them put their own money itnto it,put your house and business up for collateral.If they proved to me they are all in willing to put a risk into it then i might buy into it,but if all they are after is play money,not a chance in hell am i giving one rusted run over by a train penny.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Personally I could care less for the terminology used. Yes I did (insert your choice of label) money into the potential creation of Pantheon.
Is it guaranteed? No. Therefore a gamble? Sure.
Do I personally see any other games now, in the past years, or in the near future, that could live up to MY expectations for what I believe a MMO should be. Frankly No.
It could possibly be long odds, but those odds could diminish dramatically if their development yields a decent model to attract an investor. My only hope is enough control is maintained to create the game that the niche needs and not the game that the masses want.
Which I am sure everyone is aware of how pleasing "everyone" in an mmo yields a crap game with no depth, no challenge, no group dependancy, and ultimately no longevity.
Long odds is better than no odds. Pantheon only MMO in development that is even in the friggin realm of what an MMO should be. If it doesnt get made, im no worse off than i am now. If it does, then its awesome.
I think there is one major thing you three are missing with this argument, an MMORPG is what the players make of it, the only way it's going to be your perfect MMO experience is if the vast majority approach it as you would. Which is based on recollections of a community that came together over a decade ago. One that diverged into many different directions in terms of wants and expectations.
That goes for the direction it's development takes in what it offers post release as well. The majority will guide the devs hands in how this experience plays out, just as it does with any other live service.
Having this strict ideal on what an MMO "should be" is a recipe for disappointment.
You're making a lot of the same talking point type arguments against niche games that have already been made.
MMOs have servers, whether the game has 2.5million people or 25000 people is irrelevant, you create as many servers as you need to keep the worlds populated, if that happens to be 10 servers of 2500 people, your experience in the game is no different than if there were 100 servers of 2500 people, as far as your individual enjoyment. There's been plenty of examples of games with low populations that are still profitable. You can run a game with a dozen employees and still make meaningful content updates and still pay the bills and make profit.
I do understand your point about being hyper specific about what you consider to be the perfect game. Keep in mind most of us bitter vets are not that way. We just want something thats more on that side of the valley than current MMOs are.
Think of it like a pendulum, if EQ was the leftmost point of the pendulum swing, and lets say SWTOR was the rightmost of the pendulum swing, we're gonna be happy if the game is somewhere between the leftmost and middle.
The point is we're talking about a majority guiding direction, but its a majority of a niche.
If they dont advertise and promote and try to design the game to people looking for the on rails casualized experience that they can find in almost all MMOs, its not going to be a problem.
Think of it like politics, if you're writing a bill trying to appeal to everyone, you achieve nothing because the different parties who have greatly differing views can never come to an agreement, however, if you write a bill that is say mostly left leaning and appeals to democrats, yeah, you're going to get internal squabbling amongst the democrats as to how far the bill should go, but they're still gonna vote for it and pass it in the end and generally be happy with the end result.
So, me and hypothetical other bitter vet might argue over how hard the death penalty should be, but we're both in agreement that there should be a harsher death penalty than in current mmo's.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
There are ONLY two ways i would EVER invest into any game,either buying shares or by spending money on it when it is finished.I would not give one red cent to any developer so he can sit back in his lazy boy chair sipping wine in front of his 75 inch tv screen.
If their ideas are so great,let them put their own money itnto it,put your house and business up for collateral.If they proved to me they are all in willing to put a risk into it then i might buy into it,but if all they are after is play money,not a chance in hell am i giving one rusted run over by a train penny.
We're all very glad you feel that way. However, you are the minority in this situation. Crowdfunding has proven to be a popular and overall successful system, and has produced far more good games than it has produced duds.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
There are ONLY two ways i would EVER invest into any game,either buying shares or by spending money on it when it is finished.I would not give one red cent to any developer so he can sit back in his lazy boy chair sipping wine in front of his 75 inch tv screen.
If their ideas are so great,let them put their own money itnto it,put your house and business up for collateral.If they proved to me they are all in willing to put a risk into it then i might buy into it,but if all they are after is play money,not a chance in hell am i giving one rusted run over by a train penny.
We're all very glad you feel that way. However, you are the minority in this situation. Crowdfunding has proven to be a popular and overall successful system, and has produced far more good games than it has produced duds.
Yeah, no.
Proof or shut up.
The last time I saw ANY stats for crowdfunded games actually releasing, it was on the order of 30% even "released" and some of those were with the same BS alpha/early access excuses that are becoming all too common. The remaining are either "in development" (even tho some had developers that said nothing for extended periods) or straight up "failed" aka ran out of money and closed up shop.
That is "released", not even talking about well made, good, or enjoyable.
I could name at least 3 or 4 fails for every success like Pillars of Eternity or Wasteland 2. In the MMO space, there has not been one success yet, although plenty of failures.
So, no... there have NOT been more good games than duds, and people/gamers are starting to realize that "crowdfunded" is not some magic portal to good games.
I think there is one major thing you three are missing with this argument, an MMORPG is what the players make of it, the only way it's going to be your perfect MMO experience is if the vast majority approach it as you would. Which is based on recollections of a community that came together over a decade ago. One that diverged into many different directions in terms of wants and expectations.
That goes for the direction it's development takes in what it offers post release as well. The majority will guide the devs hands in how this experience plays out, just as it does with any other live service.
Having this strict ideal on what an MMO "should be" is a recipe for disappointment.
You're making a lot of the same talking point type arguments against niche games that have already been made.
MMOs have servers, whether the game has 2.5million people or 25000 people is irrelevant, you create as many servers as you need to keep the worlds populated, if that happens to be 10 servers of 2500 people, your experience in the game is no different than if there were 100 servers of 2500 people, as far as your individual enjoyment. There's been plenty of examples of games with low populations that are still profitable. You can run a game with a dozen employees and still make meaningful content updates and still pay the bills and make profit.
I do understand your point about being hyper specific about what you consider to be the perfect game. Keep in mind most of us bitter vets are not that way. We just want something thats more on that side of the valley than current MMOs are.
Think of it like a pendulum, if EQ was the leftmost point of the pendulum swing, and lets say SWTOR was the rightmost of the pendulum swing, we're gonna be happy if the game is somewhere between the leftmost and middle.
The point is we're talking about a majority guiding direction, but its a majority of a niche.
If they dont advertise and promote and try to design the game to people looking for the on rails casualized experience that they can find in almost all MMOs, its not going to be a problem.
Think of it like politics, if you're writing a bill trying to appeal to everyone, you achieve nothing because the different parties who have greatly differing views can never come to an agreement, however, if you write a bill that is say mostly left leaning and appeals to democrats, yeah, you're going to get internal squabbling amongst the democrats as to how far the bill should go, but they're still gonna vote for it and pass it in the end and generally be happy with the end result.
So, me and hypothetical other bitter vet might argue over how hard the death penalty should be, but we're both in agreement that there should be a harsher death penalty than in current mmo's.
I'm not sure how you'd view what I said as an argument against niche titles. I was strictly speaking about the mentality of the overall community, and how that can influence the nature of the game. As an example an overly elitist community, is much different than an open as well as outgoing community.
Sure Different servers can be a factor in that as well, yet it still comes down to the controlling ratio of the above stated orientations. As it boils down to which is promoted more within the overall community. If the majority are tied up in accolades, elitism, possession, as well as 1-up-manship. It can be an ugly thing.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The current community is simply the target audience. You may mistake it as some form of elitism, but we are no different than any other niche demographic. We don't go to other forums and expect them to bend to our will, and we don't want people with a different outlook on MMOs to attempt to fundamentally alter Pantheon.
If people agree with the overall direction of Pantheon, they have the option of helping make it a reality by joining the internal community and contributing their ideas, or by telling people about it and discussing it here.
I plan on participating at some point. But the game will have to be closer to reality.
My BIG problem with crowdfunding is a trickle start.
Players will slowly enter the game, as oppose to a release date.
MMOs are unique because of the release day rush. Players like to see players and lots of them. People like the feeling of being where they are supposed to be. Everyone equal, no already experts. Server wipes may help, but also piss others off.
Here is an example :
Vanguard late stages. Many liked Vanguard in the later stages around when the starter island was made. But the problem was POPULATION NEVER AT THE SAME TIME. Players came and went. Never populated at the same time.
The biggest complaint was low population, causing players to quit.
Regarding Vanguard's problem, population was definitely an issue. However, other than the fact that people lost faith in the game and never returned, I believe the an even more serious issue was the way in which the game had changed. The original game had harsher penalties, slower travel, harder content, less quest progression and was more group based in general. Personally, I found the original game, even with all the bugs, to be the much more rewarding, immersive and enjoyable experience of the two.
Was thinking about what VR could do to get a lot more people
excited about backing this project. What if they were to take the
assets & code they have done so far and made a temporary playable
zone, one that gave you a real idea of what the end product will be
like. It wouldn't even have to be large, just enough to get your beak
wet.
If the end product was good, would that be enough to get you
around your Brad bias and back a game you might be on the fence about?
I guess they could make a new Isle of Dawn, yes.
I dont think that will have much influence ... while people like me (programmer) could maybe get one or another idea, I think the average man is much less likely to be impressed.
They intend to have a limited portion of the game ready for external (closed) alpha testing by the end of 2015. Being as how the goal is for Terminus to be one open world, players trying the game (it will be free to try on launch) will actually be among everyone else and not an instance with demo content.
Comments
The most important thing I would expect to get better over time is the art asset development pipeline. Better tools allowing content creators to do more with less. This allows each developer to create more content in the same amount of time. Thus a larger install with the same size team.
Also, I don't think the size of the install necessarily reflects more content. If I double the size of textures on a model it would come close quadrupling the size of the exact same content.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
If their ideas are so great,let them put their own money itnto it,put your house and business up for collateral.If they proved to me they are all in willing to put a risk into it then i might buy into it,but if all they are after is play money,not a chance in hell am i giving one rusted run over by a train penny.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
You're making a lot of the same talking point type arguments against niche games that have already been made.
MMOs have servers, whether the game has 2.5million people or 25000 people is irrelevant, you create as many servers as you need to keep the worlds populated, if that happens to be 10 servers of 2500 people, your experience in the game is no different than if there were 100 servers of 2500 people, as far as your individual enjoyment. There's been plenty of examples of games with low populations that are still profitable. You can run a game with a dozen employees and still make meaningful content updates and still pay the bills and make profit.
I do understand your point about being hyper specific about what you consider to be the perfect game. Keep in mind most of us bitter vets are not that way. We just want something thats more on that side of the valley than current MMOs are.
Think of it like a pendulum, if EQ was the leftmost point of the pendulum swing, and lets say SWTOR was the rightmost of the pendulum swing, we're gonna be happy if the game is somewhere between the leftmost and middle.
The point is we're talking about a majority guiding direction, but its a majority of a niche.
If they dont advertise and promote and try to design the game to people looking for the on rails casualized experience that they can find in almost all MMOs, its not going to be a problem.
Think of it like politics, if you're writing a bill trying to appeal to everyone, you achieve nothing because the different parties who have greatly differing views can never come to an agreement, however, if you write a bill that is say mostly left leaning and appeals to democrats, yeah, you're going to get internal squabbling amongst the democrats as to how far the bill should go, but they're still gonna vote for it and pass it in the end and generally be happy with the end result.
So, me and hypothetical other bitter vet might argue over how hard the death penalty should be, but we're both in agreement that there should be a harsher death penalty than in current mmo's.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Proof or shut up.
The last time I saw ANY stats for crowdfunded games actually releasing, it was on the order of 30% even "released" and some of those were with the same BS alpha/early access excuses that are becoming all too common. The remaining are either "in development" (even tho some had developers that said nothing for extended periods) or straight up "failed" aka ran out of money and closed up shop.
That is "released", not even talking about well made, good, or enjoyable.
I could name at least 3 or 4 fails for every success like Pillars of Eternity or Wasteland 2. In the MMO space, there has not been one success yet, although plenty of failures.
So, no... there have NOT been more good games than duds, and people/gamers are starting to realize that "crowdfunded" is not some magic portal to good games.
Sure Different servers can be a factor in that as well, yet it still comes down to the controlling ratio of the above stated orientations. As it boils down to which is promoted more within the overall community. If the majority are tied up in accolades, elitism, possession, as well as 1-up-manship. It can be an ugly thing.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
If people agree with the overall direction of Pantheon, they have the option of helping make it a reality by joining the internal community and contributing their ideas, or by telling people about it and discussing it here.
I plan on participating at some point. But the game will have to be closer to reality.
My BIG problem with crowdfunding is a trickle start.
Players will slowly enter the game, as oppose to a release date.
MMOs are unique because of the release day rush. Players like to see players and lots of them. People like the feeling of being where they are supposed to be. Everyone equal, no already experts. Server wipes may help, but also piss others off.
Here is an example :
Vanguard late stages. Many liked Vanguard in the later stages around when the starter island was made. But the problem was POPULATION NEVER AT THE SAME TIME. Players came and went. Never populated at the same time.
The biggest complaint was low population, causing players to quit.
Regarding Vanguard's problem, population was definitely an issue. However, other than the fact that people lost faith in the game and never returned, I believe the an even more serious issue was the way in which the game had changed. The original game had harsher penalties, slower travel, harder content, less quest progression and was more group based in general. Personally, I found the original game, even with all the bugs, to be the much more rewarding, immersive and enjoyable experience of the two.
I dont think that will have much influence ... while people like me (programmer) could maybe get one or another idea, I think the average man is much less likely to be impressed.
IIRC Isle of Dawn didnt have much influence.