They might love to talk their craft but there is a difference in speaking in a comfortable, intimate environment and shoving cameras in their face having them speak to "some audience" out in the ether.
Many of them probably aren't gamers and that's probably a good thing. It seems to me that those people actually designing the game components could benefit from being a gamer. but maybe someone who is dealing with very down and dirty programming might not really benefit from being a video game player.
Yeah... you are beginning to really stretch things here. I mean, you are now honestly saying that it is good that they may not be into games?
Umm... I think we are good, no need to continue this discussion.
Good luck!
Does them "being into games" make them better programmers or animators?
There's no stretching at all. You have this delusion that every aspect of a game's development needs to have active gamers (at least that is what it seems you are referring to) but it seems to me that certain aspects of a game's development would more benefit by a great artist, great coder, great guy who can handle back end stuff such as the network. And if he wasn't into games then how would that really affect him being amazing at his craft?
the top end guys, the people who understand games and players and how they intersect with everything would better benefit from being gamers.
I'd be more interested to hear from professional developers to see if this was indeed true.
Would that be the same as you not knowing anything about the topics you are speaking about, but think you have a valid point to make?
Like I said, enjoy those mainstream games.
Quite frankly you don't make any good argument so I strongly suspect you don't have any idea what you are talking about.
As far as "enjoy those mainstream games" I think anyone on this site who has read one of my posts knows that I prefer old school "non" mainstream games. So again, you really don't have a point. good going.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
They didn't hand you anything on a silver platter but most importantly it brought COMMUNITIES together. You got to know your fellow players, you knew people by their names, what class each person was(nowadays everyone has 19872390813 alts because of how easy shit is) friendships and relationships formed.
Exactly. Some of my EQ friendships have lasted nearing two decades now. How many mainstream games these days result in such lasting friendships? Not sure how they can, I mean.. nobody has any time, what with all that "WINNING!" going on.
EQ was pretty greedy about the dollar too...They were releasing expansions all the time and had the $15 a month sub model.....Many of us that played during the 99-2004 era remember spending quite a bit on EQ and after leaving not wanting a sub model again.
LOL
First off... EQ started with a 10 buck sub model for years. Second, you are seriously going to argue that that the company is greedy by providing the players continuous new content?
I assume WoWs model is better, to charge you 15 a month and release an expansion once every 2-3 years while they have the players grinding tail chasing content till their eyes bleed?
Or maybe... you like the FTP model, where you play the game for free, but then everything in the game is a pay wall, or a gimmick to encourage you to want to use the store where if you do, you end up spending 100s a month rather than that sub fee?
I mean, help me out here. I want to understand how a company who charges you a monthly fee and then provides you with new content in a timely manner is greedy? I mean don't you actually get a bunch of new content with each expansion? Is it greedy to charge for an actual service you provide? Should we all go protest on Wall Street to show our displeasure with this greedy system that actually expects to be paid for services? I mean, this world!!! It is so GREEDY I swear! Making us buy things they made, durn it!!!
Would that be the same as you not knowing anything about the topics you are speaking about, but think you have a valid point to make?
Hold on there, snowflake. You spent the past hour spewing all sorts of ... whatever... as if it was fact about what developers are, how they think, and what they do. It takes a brass pair to put a cherry on top of that monumental BS sundae with a post telling someone else they're talking about topics they know nothing about.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
They didn't hand you anything on a silver platter but most importantly it brought COMMUNITIES together. You got to know your fellow players, you knew people by their names, what class each person was(nowadays everyone has 19872390813 alts because of how easy shit is) friendships and relationships formed.
Exactly. Some of my EQ friendships have lasted nearing two decades now. How many mainstream games these days result in such lasting friendships? Not sure how they can, I mean.. nobody has any time, what with all that "WINNING!" going on.
They have the time, but times have changed. Simple as that. Stuff like this was common even at WoW launch and into Burning Colons. The reality is: Most of the games actually sucked, including EQ. Being the first "big" thing doesn't make you the best, it's the first step in an iterative process. People are confusing cancer inducing UIs and solutions born from technical limitations for something iconic and praiseworthy. I really wonder sometimes if the "good old times" guys actually played the games back then, or if they just watched their parents doing it.
Quite frankly you don't make any good argument so I strongly suspect you don't have any idea what you are talking about.
As far as "enjoy those mainstream games" I think anyone on this site who has read one of my posts knows that I prefer old school "non" mainstream games. So again, you really don't have a point. good going.
You aren't making an argument. You are stacking assumptions and honestly, your lack knowledge is starting to show about the software engineering process. Yes, someone can design a game engine without liking games at all, but you went on to say that they will actually be better at it which has no sound position to establish itself and shows a lack of understanding of game design AND systems engineering. So excuse me if I don't wish to discuss such with you.
All I can go by is what arguments you make and when you go to great lengths to defend the mainstream game industry by claiming they are actually better by not being interested in games, it leaves that position of "well I am old school" a tad lacking. I mean, mainstream games are what most of us hate here and part of their design is based on money and a disinterest in gaming systems. So do you see the problem with your argument here?
Quite frankly you don't make any good argument so I strongly suspect you don't have any idea what you are talking about.
As far as "enjoy those mainstream games" I think anyone on this site who has read one of my posts knows that I prefer old school "non" mainstream games. So again, you really don't have a point. good going.
You aren't making an argument. You are stacking assumptions and honestly, your lack knowledge is starting to show about the software engineering process. Yes, someone can design a game engine without liking games at all, but you went on to say that they will actually be better at it which has no sound position to establish itself and shows a lack of understanding of game design AND systems engineering. So excuse me if I don't wish to discuss such with you.
All I can go by is what arguments you make and when you go to great lengths to defend the mainstream game industry by claiming they are actually better by not being interested in games, it leaves that position of "well I am old school" a tad lacking. I mean, mainstream games are what most of us hate here and part of their design is based on money and a disinterest in gaming systems. So do you see the problem with your argument here?
I never said they "would" be better at it. If you can find that bit I'd be glad to alter it (I think you misread) and clarify what I'm saying which is being someone who likes games has nothing to do with them being a good coder, a good network guy and that finding someone who is a good coder, good network guy is far better than finding someone who is a gamer who codes, works on the network, etc.
A friend of mine knows the wife of a game developer who works (worked?) at a local game company. He is a gamer. When he joined they put him on a project editing excel spreadsheets. Lots of them. I don't think him being a gamer was a good asset there. If he was great at such tasks then that would be the far better skill set.
Additionally, and again, you go back to a romantic notion of game development. So my position that having great people who are not gamers working on parts of a game that don't require "game development skills" automatically makes me a person who likes mainstream games?
I would argue that if I was a firm believer in all game development staff should be interested in games and be gamers could also apply to someone who firmly loved mainstream games.
And no, most people on this site don't hate main stream games. there are certainly a vocal group who hate them but there are a lot of people on this site who will stand up and be counted in the "I love WoW, I love Aion, I love Diablo III" contingent.
And while mainstream games do have to make a lot of money I don't think the developers are lackluster about gaming systems. They just put in systems that speak to the demographic they are creating that game for.
You essentially argue from a romantic, idealistic place. This isn't a bad thing but when all you have is conjecture then you really aren't backing anything up.
And "yes" I"m not a software developer. I have worked for two Software startups that were comprised mostly of developers with a skeleton crew of administration. From my conversations with them it seemed that they were good at what they did but they weren't hired because they loved writing software for handhelds and "lived" the handheld market or that they loved writing algorithms that measured internet chatter. They were good at what they did and were hired for what they did.
I get the sense that game companies might have too many "gamers" working in game development but it's their passion for games that drive them but they might not be the most amazing programmers, the most amazing network guys, the most amazing artists.
Isn't that what John Romero did at his company after ID? He decided to hire passionate gamers who were not at the top of their game and it caused huge hosts of issues?
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I never said they "would" be better at it. If you can find that bit I'd be glad to alter it (I think you misread) and clarify what I'm saying which is being someone who likes games has nothing to do with them being a good coder, a good network guy and that finding someone who is a good coder, good network guy is far better than finding someone who is a gamer who codes, works on the network, etc.
A friend of mine knows the wife of a game developer who works (worked?) at a local game company. He is a gamer. When he joined they put him on a project editing excel spreadsheets. Lots of them. I don't think him being a gamer was a good asset there. If he was great at such tasks then that would be the far better skill set.
Additionally, and again, you go back to a romantic notion of game development. So my position that having great people who are not gamers working on parts of a game that don't require "game development skills" automatically makes me a person who likes mainstream games?
I would argue that if I was a firm believer in all game development staff should be interested in games and be gamers could also apply to someone who firmly loved mainstream games.
And no, most people on this site don't hate main stream games. there are certainly a vocal group who hate them but there are a lot of people on this site who will stand up and be counted in the "I love WoW, I love Aion, I love Diablo III" contingent.
And while mainstream games do have to make a lot of money I don't think the developers are lackluster about gaming systems. They just put in systems that speak to the demographic they are creating that game for.
You essentially argue from a romantic, idealistic place. This isn't a bad thing but when all you have is conjecture then you really aren't backing anything up.
And "yes" I"m not a software developer. I have worked for two Software startups that were comprised mostly of developers with a skeleton crew of administration. From my conversations with them it seemed that they were good at what they did but they weren't hired because they loved writing software for handhelds and "lived" the handheld market or that they loved writing algorithms that measured internet chatter. They were good at what they did and were hired for what they did.
I get the sense that game companies might have too many "gamers" working in game development but it's their passion for games that drive them but they might not be the most amazing programmers, the most amazing network guys, the most amazing artists.
Isn't that what John Romero did at his company after ID? He decided to hire passionate gamers who were not at the top of their game and it caused huge hosts of issues?
You stated:
Many of them probably aren't gamers and that's probably a good thing.
but maybe someone who is dealing with
very down and dirty programming might not really benefit from being a
video game player.
Again, as I said, not going to argue this with you.
They have the time, but times have changed. Simple as that. Stuff like this was common even at WoW launch and into Burning Colons. The reality is: Most of the games actually sucked, including EQ. Being the first "big" thing doesn't make you the best, it's the first step in an iterative process. People are confusing cancer inducing UIs and solutions born from technical limitations for something iconic and praiseworthy. I really wonder sometimes if the "good old times" guys actually played the games back then, or if they just watched their parents doing it.
Again, not a kid when EQ came out. I remember it, even played EQ recently with old school settings (ie on a private server), so it isn't some dreamy memory, the game is better, but I can't expect the kids today to understand, you see... most of them were still living with their parents and going to grammar/high school.
Thanks for sharing though how we don't know any better and have no idea what we want. I am sure our aversion to the wonderful face rolling games made today for the low IQ chat room ADD players of today is really just our fault, you know... because we don't know what is cool today! Bahaha Bahhaha!
People who express support for what I will call "old school" mmos (or their features) in 2015 are too often like what you see with poll numbers. It's easy to find people who will take a short poll. It's a lot harder to get those people to show up on election day and vote. Game makers know this. That's why you don't see many games like EQ get made these days. Personally, that makes me sad because I do like those sorts of games.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
They didn't hand you anything on a silver platter but most importantly it brought COMMUNITIES together. You got to know your fellow players, you knew people by their names, what class each person was(nowadays everyone has 19872390813 alts because of how easy shit is) friendships and relationships formed.
Exactly. Some of my EQ friendships have lasted nearing two decades now. How many mainstream games these days result in such lasting friendships? Not sure how they can, I mean.. nobody has any time, what with all that "WINNING!" going on.
They have the time, but times have changed. Simple as that. Stuff like this was common even at WoW launch and into Burning Colons. The reality is: Most of the games actually sucked, including EQ. Being the first "big" thing doesn't make you the best, it's the first step in an iterative process. People are confusing cancer inducing UIs and solutions born from technical limitations for something iconic and praiseworthy. I really wonder sometimes if the "good old times" guys actually played the games back then, or if they just watched their parents doing it.
Times have not changed, dumber than a bag of nails is running rampant in people.
...except for the fact that almost every channel and device one uses to regularly communicate and share ideas today did not exist then. To name a few:
Cellphones Tablets iPods, iTunes, and podcasting Wikis (yes, yes.. 1990s, but most people never heard of or used one until the mid 2000s) Twitter Facebook YouTube Twitch Skype, FaceTime, MagicJack
In August 2000, only 4.4 percent of U.S. households had a home broadband connection. Effective price for a 1 Mbps connection ~$234. In 2010, 68.2 percent of households subscribed to broadband service, with effective prices per Mbps of perhaps a couple to a few dollars. (source)
Then there's that whole mobile and casual game thing.
The way we communicate, the way we interact and - yes - our gaming habits have all changed drastically since the hayday of EQ. Anyone that denies that just reinforces that they are out of touch with not only today's gamers but today's world.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
It's not about whether a game has an "enrage" mechanism. It's about whether a game is FUN. Many of today's MMOs still share an incredible amount of DNA with EQ.
Humans and chimpanzees share a large portion of the same DNA, but I'm still not going to have sex with one.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
All of the studios were bought out by big mega-corps who view the games as widgets to make money and have no real attachment to the product. Because of that, they market to the largest audience possible to maximize profits. The "developers" don't make the decisions, the investors do. This is why for the longest time we didn't see turn based games in the market, because the bulk of the market was the console casual gamer market who didn't like such game play.
...or maybe they have a business sense you are lacking? :-P
Business and art are two different things. What he is saying is basically if a bunch of accountants and business guys forced someone like say Picasso to make changes to his paintings based on data metrics that show that if he made X, Y, and Z changes, that he would sell xx.x% more paintings at a yy.y% higher profit margin.
Its not the best example, but the point is, even as little as 15 years ago, game developers made games to make games that they were passionate about. They *also* made them to make money, but that wasn't the primary focus. As long as they turned some sort of profit, they were ok. Lets say a game took 5mil to make, but made 8mil, cool, good to go, we paid the bills, made some money, and made something we were proud of.
Now, the mega studios like EA and Ubisoft and Activision/Blizzard, are only concerned about making money hand over fist. There was an article a while back where the EA CEO talked about how they currently had something like 60 games being developed, and over the next couple years they would be pairing that down to the 5 or 6 "most profitable" IP's.
That's why we now get yearly releases of games like Call of Duty, Battlefield. etc. Or Assassin's creed 658. Its all about milking an IP for every possible cent they can. It has nothing to do with artistic expression, entertainment, etc. Its purely, 100% monetization.
The saddest part about all of it is that these people, primarily console players, have allowed themselves to be conditioned into accepting this garbage, and fooling themselves into thinking its "good". I remember a big fiasco for one of the call of duty games because EA released a "map pack" DLC for like $15 that was quite literally the exact same maps from the previous game, with no modifications whatsoever, and then wanted to charge people for it. Its ludicrous and I wish people would stop supporting this type of behavior with buying these games year after year. I refuse to buy Battlefront even though I love star wars, and have generally liked the BF series since BF1942, etc. But I refuse to support the direction they're taking it, and their monetization practices.
In my opinion crowd funding is the only thing that's going to save this genre from turning into the music industry circa late 1990's, early 2000's. Where these companies are making money hand over fist and not even trying to appear to be doing things in the interest of consumers.
"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."
EQ was pretty greedy about the dollar too...They were releasing expansions all the time and had the $15 a month sub model.....Many of us that played during the 99-2004 era remember spending quite a bit on EQ and after leaving not wanting a sub model again.
LOL
First off... EQ started with a 10 buck sub model for years. Second, you are seriously going to argue that that the company is greedy by providing the players continuous new content?
I assume WoWs model is better, to charge you 15 a month and release an expansion once every 2-3 years while they have the players grinding tail chasing content till their eyes bleed?
Or maybe... you like the FTP model, where you play the game for free, but then everything in the game is a pay wall, or a gimmick to encourage you to want to use the store where if you do, you end up spending 100s a month rather than that sub fee?
I mean, help me out here. I want to understand how a company who charges you a monthly fee and then provides you with new content in a timely manner is greedy? I mean don't you actually get a bunch of new content with each expansion? Is it greedy to charge for an actual service you provide? Should we all go protest on Wall Street to show our displeasure with this greedy system that actually expects to be paid for services? I mean, this world!!! It is so GREEDY I swear! Making us buy things they made, durn it!!!
All I can say is I spent more on EQ that all other MMOs I have played combined.....I was so burnt out on paying 15 bucks a month that I had zero interest in ever doing it again...The game was fun but was not worth anywhere near what we ended up paying for it......If Pantheon uses the same payment model they will be out of business in a year.
^ Right. Because no newer mmo's have ever charged a box price and a sub only to eventually add a cash shop and go free to play. There are none still in business.
...except for the fact that almost every channel and device one uses to regularly communicate and share ideas today did not exist then. To name a few:
Cellphones Tablets iPods, iTunes, and podcasting Wikis (yes, yes.. 1990s, but most people never heard of or used one until the mid 2000s) Twitter Facebook YouTube Twitch Skype, FaceTime, MagicJack
In August 2000, only 4.4 percent of U.S. households had a home broadband connection. Effective price for a 1 Mbps connection ~$234. In 2010, 68.2 percent of households subscribed to broadband service, with effective prices per Mbps of perhaps a couple to a few dollars. (source)
Then there's that whole mobile and casual game thing.
The way we communicate, the way we interact and - yes - our gaming habits have all changed drastically since the hayday of EQ. Anyone that denies that just reinforces that they are out of touch with not only today's gamers but today's world.
1. Cell phones, yep.. had one required for work. 2. Yep, though they were called E-books. 3. IPods, Itunes... It was called Napster/News groups and MP3s you burned to mobile CD players that could read them. 4. Wikis? Yep, or BBS, or forums we had those. 5. Twitter? Basically BBS or your pager had a messaging service for news and updates. 6. Facebook? Forums, Web Pages with forum systems, often used by guilds and friends to connect. 7. Youtube? People shared streaming video through forums and the like. 8. Twitch, Live streaming? Not really, well... I set up multicast streaming for work, wasn't common for the internet though. 9. Skype, FaceTime, MagicJack? Absolutely, we had IM, Windows messenger, Roger Wilco, etc..
We were using all these things back then, but those people were gamers, techies, academics, and the like. The average "mainstream" gamer we know today? Couldn't figure out how to turn a computer on and they were too busy playing their console games or thumbing their nose as us IT guys for playing online computer games.
Times didn't change for us, the rest of the laymen public just caught up.
They dont do those kind of games because there is not enough player base to support those games. If you think devs are too stupid to know why kicks in EQ then you are delusional.
You are delusional. EQ was one of the most popular mmorpgs in the history of mmorpgs. All versions still exist with healthy (enough) populations to profit.
You confuse mass market mmos designed for mass player rotation and profit over concept with niche classic mmorpgs which by definition target a smaller audience.
Ide pay up to $50.00 a month if the game was that good and the content was there. The problem is everyone now feels entitled to everything for free due to all the f2p cash shop grab games.
....Being Banned from MMORPG's forums since 2010, for Trolling the Trolls!!!
Its not that they don't understand, its about $$$. That is the ONLY reason. WoW was popular for two reasons. 1. It broke open the genre to people who would have not previously considered an MMO. 2. It was a popular IP from a popular studio.
Thats it.
The problem is too many suits (the guys who handle financing these games) who really don't understand the genre/market, approached it like they would another market, such as movies, or music. So, the basically looked at WoW as the Nsync or Backstreet boys of MMO, and tried to copy the formula. With boy bands, it was pick 5 guys that are good looking, can sing reasonably well, and will appeal to teenage girls. So they saw WoW as the "formula", to copy, and what we got was a bunch of Justin Biebers of MMOs.
What they didn't or don't want to realize or accept, is that WoW was a fluke. It was the perfect mixture at the perfect time. It can't be recreated. Hell even Blizzard realized that which is why they scrapped Titan and took most of the assets and turned it into Overwatch.
The market is FINALLY going in the direction it should have had WoW never graced us with its presence. Which is a lot more MMO's that cater to different play styles, instead of one big massive MMO that tries to appease everyone (and fails).
I firmly believe the only reason WoW still has as many players as it does is purely due to the sunk cost fallacy. There's a bunch of people who just can't let go of the time and/or emotional investment that they have in the game and continue to play it despite every logical reason not to.
So you don't think wow at release didn't have a certain quality to it? Certainly not bug free (for those who might bring that wrong point up) but the lack of clunkiness about the UI and the walking from zone to zone was handled well.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Ide pay up to $50.00 a month if the game was that good and the content was there. The problem is everyone now feels entitled to everything for free due to all the f2p cash shop grab games.
That is fine, this game isn't being made for them. They should be just happy to continue playing their cash shop games.
...except for the fact that almost every channel and device one uses to regularly communicate and share ideas today did not exist then. To name a few:
Cellphones Tablets iPods, iTunes, and podcasting Wikis (yes, yes.. 1990s, but most people never heard of or used one until the mid 2000s) Twitter Facebook YouTube Twitch Skype, FaceTime, MagicJack
In August 2000, only 4.4 percent of U.S. households had a home broadband connection. Effective price for a 1 Mbps connection ~$234. In 2010, 68.2 percent of households subscribed to broadband service, with effective prices per Mbps of perhaps a couple to a few dollars. (source)
Then there's that whole mobile and casual game thing.
The way we communicate, the way we interact and - yes - our gaming habits have all changed drastically since the hayday of EQ. Anyone that denies that just reinforces that they are out of touch with not only today's gamers but today's world.
1. Cell phones, yep.. had one required for work. 2. Yep, though they were called E-books. 3. IPods, Itunes... It was called Napster/News groups and MP3s you burned to mobile CD players that could read them. 4. Wikis? Yep, or BBS, or forums we had those. 5. Twitter? Basically BBS or your pager had a messaging service for news and updates. 6. Facebook? Forums, Web Pages with forum systems, often used by guilds and friends to connect. 7. Youtube? People shared streaming video through forums and the like. 8. Twitch, Live streaming? Not really, well... I set up multicast streaming for work, wasn't common for the internet though. 9. Skype, FaceTime, MagicJack? Absolutely, we had IM, Windows messenger, Roger Wilco, etc..
We were using all these things back then, but those people were gamers, techies, academics, and the like. The average "mainstream" gamer we know today? Couldn't figure out how to turn a computer on and they were too busy playing their console games or thumbing their nose as us IT guys for playing online computer games.
Times didn't change for us, the rest of the laymen public just caught up.
Yep, you are definitely an EQ player.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I wonder, how many developers actually understand what EQ was like.
I was watching Sword Art Online the other day, interestingly, the script was made during Lineage and EQ (WoW didn't even exist yet). The author later admitted he didn't accurately represent those older MMO. (Kiroto can solo lvl 40 dungeons somehow).
But, I also have a feeling few developers truly understand games like EQ. Things like the static camps, the pulling+CC, how pulling happened on raids, what trains are, what quad kiting is, what setting rampage means, what enrage was, what shakerpaging was.
No, there are enough games like EQ that if a company wanted to make a game like EQ or UO or FFXI (my one-true-love), they would. They don't because nobody else has taken the dive and demonstrated whether that model can still make money, and because (while I believe those old games could be still be polishable with modern graphics and a few reasonable comforts) developers are still chasing WoW money.
I hate it too, but most AAA developers aren't going to risk it all to potentially make a pile of money, when they can follow in mainstream footsteps and make a larger pile of money.
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug. 12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
The reason why people aren't creating EQesque MMOs is because of budgets and the desire to make as much money as possible, as quickly as possible. If investors treated MMOs more like a long-term investment, the EQ model would be more substainable (I'd view it as a low/moderate risk investment with the WoW model being high risk). Although, people are designing MMOs on 30+ million dollar budgets with excessive salaries to pay. And, the goal would be to "capture" WoW numbers by making a clone and expecting the same results.
However, Pantheon Developers aren't even projecting themselves to hit EQ Peak numbers (although I'm sure they'd like to). Brad stated back in January 2015 that 30k subscriptions would be great, and 50k would be exceptional. Obviously, things can change, and a lot has since January - but I think those figures would still stand as being good.
Now.....
If you look at Pantheon's Facebook page - there are currently 11,634 Likes. I highly doubt there's a ton of "bots" liking that page, so, I'm going to round for the sake of easy math and say there will be 10,000 subscribers out of the bunch if the game launched today.
I think with regards to inflation, Pantheon could be a $24.99/month sub (if paying month to month). 19.99 if subscribed to a 6 month rate, and the "accepted" 14.99 if subscribed to a year.
However, so I don't hear the groans saying no one will pay that much, again, for easy math and fewer complaints, I'll use 15.00/month.
$10,000 x $15.00 = $150,000/month or or $1,800,000/yr. That's not even counting the original box sales for the first year, which will most likely be 40.00 x 8,000 (removed 2 k for pledgers) = $320,000.
So, a very reasonable and low estimate for the first year would be $2,120,000 (yes some of that 10k would leave, but others would join, so for the sake of easy math, I'll leave it at 10k).
Brad is on record now stating that he has currently 15 developers, and wants to max out at 25. They don't have an official office (or at least didn't use to), and to my knowledge are still working remotely which would create very little overhead.
So, again, let's assume 25 tops where Brad wants to max out the staff at, if the $2,120,000 funds were split equally amongst all developers, that would be $84,800/yr per developer. Obviously, it wouldn't split evenly and the range would probably me more realistically $40,000 - $120,000/yr which for a startup company, in the first year, trying to get the word out would be pretty fair. The overheard to maintain the servers, create expansions, etc. would also have to come into play, but I have no doubt that they couldn't maintain the servers and create content with that cash flow.
The hardest part of this whole equation is building the game, and building a "good game." If it's built, with the limited developers they have now, they'll have plenty of money to sustain it, and more than likely, a lot more subscribers than 10k.
There could be plenty of games built like EQ, especially with start-up companies with that kind of subscription/numbers. The problem with larger companies is investors become involved and want the most money possible as quickly as possible so the WoW monster overtakes the design for the sake of chasing the dollar.
If people looked at EQ as a model, it has lasted nearly 17 years now, and even if the average subscribers over that lifespan were 100,000k (which more than likely is extremely low), 100,000k x 15/month x 12 months x 17 years = $306,000,000, which, I'd say is a pretty good investment.
TLDR: MMOs need to realize they don't need 250k subscriptions to be successful. Have a small team, create a good game and 30k would easily be enough.
You need to subtract taxes and development costs (excluding salaries) like hardware, software licenses etc. (some have yearly subscription), from all numbers You gave
Comments
As far as "enjoy those mainstream games" I think anyone on this site who has read one of my posts knows that I prefer old school "non" mainstream games. So again, you really don't have a point. good going.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
First off... EQ started with a 10 buck sub model for years. Second, you are seriously going to argue that that the company is greedy by providing the players continuous new content?
I assume WoWs model is better, to charge you 15 a month and release an expansion once every 2-3 years while they have the players grinding tail chasing content till their eyes bleed?
Or maybe... you like the FTP model, where you play the game for free, but then everything in the game is a pay wall, or a gimmick to encourage you to want to use the store where if you do, you end up spending 100s a month rather than that sub fee?
I mean, help me out here. I want to understand how a company who charges you a monthly fee and then provides you with new content in a timely manner is greedy? I mean don't you actually get a bunch of new content with each expansion? Is it greedy to charge for an actual service you provide? Should we all go protest on Wall Street to show our displeasure with this greedy system that actually expects to be paid for services? I mean, this world!!! It is so GREEDY I swear! Making us buy things they made, durn it!!!
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
All I can go by is what arguments you make and when you go to great lengths to defend the mainstream game industry by claiming they are actually better by not being interested in games, it leaves that position of "well I am old school" a tad lacking. I mean, mainstream games are what most of us hate here and part of their design is based on money and a disinterest in gaming systems. So do you see the problem with your argument here?
A friend of mine knows the wife of a game developer who works (worked?) at a local game company. He is a gamer. When he joined they put him on a project editing excel spreadsheets. Lots of them. I don't think him being a gamer was a good asset there. If he was great at such tasks then that would be the far better skill set.
Additionally, and again, you go back to a romantic notion of game development. So my position that having great people who are not gamers working on parts of a game that don't require "game development skills" automatically makes me a person who likes mainstream games?
I would argue that if I was a firm believer in all game development staff should be interested in games and be gamers could also apply to someone who firmly loved mainstream games.
And no, most people on this site don't hate main stream games. there are certainly a vocal group who hate them but there are a lot of people on this site who will stand up and be counted in the "I love WoW, I love Aion, I love Diablo III" contingent.
And while mainstream games do have to make a lot of money I don't think the developers are lackluster about gaming systems. They just put in systems that speak to the demographic they are creating that game for.
You essentially argue from a romantic, idealistic place. This isn't a bad thing but when all you have is conjecture then you really aren't backing anything up.
And "yes" I"m not a software developer. I have worked for two Software startups that were comprised mostly of developers with a skeleton crew of administration. From my conversations with them it seemed that they were good at what they did but they weren't hired because they loved writing software for handhelds and "lived" the handheld market or that they loved writing algorithms that measured internet chatter. They were good at what they did and were hired for what they did.
I get the sense that game companies might have too many "gamers" working in game development but it's their passion for games that drive them but they might not be the most amazing programmers, the most amazing network guys, the most amazing artists.
Isn't that what John Romero did at his company after ID? He decided to hire passionate gamers who were not at the top of their game and it caused huge hosts of issues?
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
You stated:
Again, as I said, not going to argue this with you.
Thanks for sharing though how we don't know any better and have no idea what we want. I am sure our aversion to the wonderful face rolling games made today for the low IQ chat room ADD players of today is really just our fault, you know... because we don't know what is cool today! Bahaha Bahhaha!
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Cellphones
Tablets
iPods, iTunes, and podcasting
Wikis (yes, yes.. 1990s, but most people never heard of or used one until the mid 2000s)
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Twitch
Skype, FaceTime, MagicJack
Then there's that whole mobile and casual game thing.
The way we communicate, the way we interact and - yes - our gaming habits have all changed drastically since the hayday of EQ. Anyone that denies that just reinforces that they are out of touch with not only today's gamers but today's world.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Business and art are two different things. What he is saying is basically if a bunch of accountants and business guys forced someone like say Picasso to make changes to his paintings based on data metrics that show that if he made X, Y, and Z changes, that he would sell xx.x% more paintings at a yy.y% higher profit margin.
Its not the best example, but the point is, even as little as 15 years ago, game developers made games to make games that they were passionate about. They *also* made them to make money, but that wasn't the primary focus. As long as they turned some sort of profit, they were ok. Lets say a game took 5mil to make, but made 8mil, cool, good to go, we paid the bills, made some money, and made something we were proud of.
Now, the mega studios like EA and Ubisoft and Activision/Blizzard, are only concerned about making money hand over fist. There was an article a while back where the EA CEO talked about how they currently had something like 60 games being developed, and over the next couple years they would be pairing that down to the 5 or 6 "most profitable" IP's.
That's why we now get yearly releases of games like Call of Duty, Battlefield. etc. Or Assassin's creed 658. Its all about milking an IP for every possible cent they can. It has nothing to do with artistic expression, entertainment, etc. Its purely, 100% monetization.
The saddest part about all of it is that these people, primarily console players, have allowed themselves to be conditioned into accepting this garbage, and fooling themselves into thinking its "good". I remember a big fiasco for one of the call of duty games because EA released a "map pack" DLC for like $15 that was quite literally the exact same maps from the previous game, with no modifications whatsoever, and then wanted to charge people for it. Its ludicrous and I wish people would stop supporting this type of behavior with buying these games year after year. I refuse to buy Battlefront even though I love star wars, and have generally liked the BF series since BF1942, etc. But I refuse to support the direction they're taking it, and their monetization practices.
In my opinion crowd funding is the only thing that's going to save this genre from turning into the music industry circa late 1990's, early 2000's. Where these companies are making money hand over fist and not even trying to appear to be doing things in the interest of consumers.
"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
^ Right. Because no newer mmo's have ever charged a box price and a sub only to eventually add a cash shop and go free to play. There are none still in business.
1. Cell phones, yep.. had one required for work.
2. Yep, though they were called E-books.
3. IPods, Itunes... It was called Napster/News groups and MP3s you burned to mobile CD players that could read them.
4. Wikis? Yep, or BBS, or forums we had those.
5. Twitter? Basically BBS or your pager had a messaging service for news and updates.
6. Facebook? Forums, Web Pages with forum systems, often used by guilds and friends to connect.
7. Youtube? People shared streaming video through forums and the like.
8. Twitch, Live streaming? Not really, well... I set up multicast streaming for work, wasn't common for the internet though.
9. Skype, FaceTime, MagicJack? Absolutely, we had IM, Windows messenger, Roger Wilco, etc..
We were using all these things back then, but those people were gamers, techies, academics, and the like. The average "mainstream" gamer we know today? Couldn't figure out how to turn a computer on and they were too busy playing their console games or thumbing their nose as us IT guys for playing online computer games.
Times didn't change for us, the rest of the laymen public just caught up.
You confuse mass market mmos designed for mass player rotation and profit over concept with niche classic mmorpgs which by definition target a smaller audience.
This sort of ignorance permeates these forums.
You stay sassy!
....Being Banned from MMORPG's forums since 2010, for Trolling the Trolls!!!
So you don't think wow at release didn't have a certain quality to it? Certainly not bug free (for those who might bring that wrong point up) but the lack of clunkiness about the UI and the walking from zone to zone was handled well.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I hate it too, but most AAA developers aren't going to risk it all to potentially make a pile of money, when they can follow in mainstream footsteps and make a larger pile of money.
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug.
12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
However, Pantheon Developers aren't even projecting themselves to hit EQ Peak numbers (although I'm sure they'd like to). Brad stated back in January 2015 that 30k subscriptions would be great, and 50k would be exceptional. Obviously, things can change, and a lot has since January - but I think those figures would still stand as being good.
Now.....
If you look at Pantheon's Facebook page - there are currently 11,634 Likes. I highly doubt there's a ton of "bots" liking that page, so, I'm going to round for the sake of easy math and say there will be 10,000 subscribers out of the bunch if the game launched today.
I think with regards to inflation, Pantheon could be a $24.99/month sub (if paying month to month). 19.99 if subscribed to a 6 month rate, and the "accepted" 14.99 if subscribed to a year.
However, so I don't hear the groans saying no one will pay that much, again, for easy math and fewer complaints, I'll use 15.00/month.
$10,000 x $15.00 = $150,000/month or or $1,800,000/yr. That's not even counting the original box sales for the first year, which will most likely be 40.00 x 8,000 (removed 2 k for pledgers) = $320,000.
So, a very reasonable and low estimate for the first year would be $2,120,000 (yes some of that 10k would leave, but others would join, so for the sake of easy math, I'll leave it at 10k).
Brad is on record now stating that he has currently 15 developers, and wants to max out at 25. They don't have an official office (or at least didn't use to), and to my knowledge are still working remotely which would create very little overhead.
So, again, let's assume 25 tops where Brad wants to max out the staff at, if the $2,120,000 funds were split equally amongst all developers, that would be $84,800/yr per developer. Obviously, it wouldn't split evenly and the range would probably me more realistically $40,000 - $120,000/yr which for a startup company, in the first year, trying to get the word out would be pretty fair. The overheard to maintain the servers, create expansions, etc. would also have to come into play, but I have no doubt that they couldn't maintain the servers and create content with that cash flow.
The hardest part of this whole equation is building the game, and building a "good game." If it's built, with the limited developers they have now, they'll have plenty of money to sustain it, and more than likely, a lot more subscribers than 10k.
10k = 1,800,000/yr
20k = 3,600,000/yr
30k = (where Brad is hoping) = 5,400,00/yr
40k = 7,200,000/yr
50k = 9,000,000/yr
There could be plenty of games built like EQ, especially with start-up companies with that kind of subscription/numbers. The problem with larger companies is investors become involved and want the most money possible as quickly as possible so the WoW monster overtakes the design for the sake of chasing the dollar.
If people looked at EQ as a model, it has lasted nearly 17 years now, and even if the average subscribers over that lifespan were 100,000k (which more than likely is extremely low), 100,000k x 15/month x 12 months x 17 years = $306,000,000, which, I'd say is a pretty good investment.
TLDR: MMOs need to realize they don't need 250k subscriptions to be successful. Have a small team, create a good game and 30k would easily be enough.
You need to subtract taxes and development costs (excluding salaries) like hardware, software licenses etc. (some have yearly subscription), from all numbers You gave