Clearly Brad knows EQ, but Pantheon is the only game even trying, it's like all other companies are too scared to even try. You think it might have to do with the fact that most developers simply don't understand what EQ was like.
Or they're fully aware, and would rather make a game in the 21st century than the 20th?
It seems pretty obvious to me that most development companies are not willing to chase niche audiences, that is the reason why the genre is in the shape it is today.
Companies, yes. It's certainly not a lack of understanding, it's a great understanding that dissuades development companies from chasing niches. That being said, small, grass-roots development companies, crowdfunding, etc. will produce some games. So I guess that's a positive.
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.
....or posters who focus mainly on the negative aspects of the older games to prove a point while ignoring all of the good stuff they offered and would still be appreciated today by a sizeable enough audience to make it profitable. Changing times does no equate to zero sum audience.
You contradict yourself within your same post. I agreed that the hardest thing is to develop the game, which is why I said the most difficult thing for Pantheon was to actually release the game.
This thread is asking why more MMOs aren't created like EQ, not why more MMOs aren't created period - your 5+ year development cycle point. Obviously the huge development cycle, risk, and costs are a huge turnoff to anyone creating MMOs, but that wasn't the original question. It's the assumption that if MMOs are created, why aren't more EQesque and if developers don't understand EQ. So, taking the development cycle out of the mix - people create more WoW-like games because they cater to the masses, have the most draw to the most players, and yes, would potentially make the most money the quickest out of a released MMO. An Eq-esque game would potentially have more longevity than the recent WoW clones, so more money could potentially made long-term.
I wasn't attempting to be ultra-detailed. It was a simplified version saying you don't need 250k+ subscribers to maintain or be profitable with a start-up, small development team.
I didn't play EVE Online for long, so I can't argue this point. But, I think it you build a loyal enough fanbase and a good enough game, EQ proves this point otherwise.
I don't disagree; however, again, the point was that you don't need 250k+ subscribers and that the game could be sustainable with a much lower number and profitable around Brad's 30-50k estimate.
I do not see any contradiction there.
Releasing = burning through the budget, still no money made. Tough part is to make profit which can only happen years after release.
My point about development cycle was clearly aimed at your notion of MMOs being made for "as quickly as possible", they are not. MMOs are long term investment by all means.
Why developers do not make EQ-like games? It was already answered - EQ is the thing of the past, players moved on, developers followed and moved on as well. The rest of my post was adding to the matter a simple point: You can't aim low.
People think that if big company makes "n" money and have "x" expenses, you can just make a project that will cost x/10 and will have n/10 revenue and it will be enough to make it "successful". That is simply not true because money that goes in and out do not scale the same with project size.
Seems like even Bradley McQuaid is aware of that and he certainly isn't aiming low with his small team and 30-50k subscribers. But it is imo a pipe dream.
I am not arguing any specific numbers, I was just pointing out that it isn't all that simple as saying: "Oh, we don't need +250k subscribers". In fact, you need as many subscribers as possible(like anyone else) and going for niche and having small team significantly hinders your pursue.
Also, statistically speaking, your chances to succeed increase with money you put into a project.
I think developers are so focused on money they have lost sight of what made people play MMOs. They are forcing MMOs to fit in MOBAs foot steps trying to win the quick money they make. IMO its like a 5 star restaurant trying to bring in the best of a fast food joint to try and get greater numbers. All this has done in alienate MMOers. We get in a new MMO and say "Well this is not right" I get MOBA fans that like MMOs love it. But pure MMO fans and others that would be new to MMOs that dont like MOBAs just dont gel with the new style of MMOs.
EQ is the thing of the past, players moved on, developers followed and moved on as well.
The same thing was said about turn based games, that they were a thing of the past, that players moved on and that there was no way a company could be successful at it, yet...
Why developers do not make EQ-like games? It was already answered - EQ is the thing of the past, players moved on, developers followed and moved on as well. The rest of my post was adding to the matter a simple point: You can't aim low.
Right, because there's been so many games built like EQ since 1999 that proves that you're correct.
People think that if big company makes "n" money and have "x" expenses, you can just make a project that will cost x/10 and will have n/10 revenue and it will be enough to make it "successful". That is simply not true because money that goes in and out do not scale the same with project size.
And you have proof of this? Successful start-up companies in a variety of business ventures with little to no overhead suggest otherwise.
Seems like even Bradley McQuaid is aware of that and he certainly isn't aiming low with his small team and 30-50k subscribers. But it is imo a pipe dream.
And here's the statement that invalidates your postings previous to this - "IMO", so it's just that you disagree that it will be successful, not that it can't.
As Hrimrir touched on earlier in this thread with his music industry comparison, the problem is large companies with big money investors want to chase the maximum number of subscribers. Pantheon isn't trying to be a mass-appeal game. So, as long as the Pantheon team again can develop the game (the most difficult part) and the investors are on-board with the niche game - it has the realistic chance of being successful.
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.
The "Progammers" are never the issue except in games with huge technical issues. It's the game designers that need to be educated on past games so that they can both embrace what gamers have loved and combine it with new ideas and it also allows them to bypass ideas that were failures in the past. It appears to be pretty rare for a coder to also be an idea man in the development process.
I absolutely agree. Which I why I say that one does not have to be a gamer to be an animator, network "code guy", etc to be great at working on the game. It's the game designers who would benefit from being "gamers".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Hrimnir said: Business and art are two different things.
Once you start asking money for your art, it is a business like any other.
Devs 15 years ago had no idea what they are doing, they were pioneering the market but they were doing the same thing those big corps are doing today - trying to provide games people want to play and pay for it. Nothing has changed in that regard, just projects are much larger these days and there is way more competition.
The rest is just your bias, bitterness or w/e.
So an artist who sells his painting is no longer an artist? What about a carpenter, or woodworker. Should they completely abandon all of their passions and principles to make as much money as possible?
He's not saying that they aren't artists. He is saying that once an artist of any sort sells something or tries to sell something he is now in the business of "art".
Have you ever "sold" some manifestation of art? I have.
I've had commissions where specific groups wanted certain things. they essentially hired me to create specific types of music.
I could have pulled the "artiste" and say "no, that's not what I'm about and you will get what you get" but that's not what they were interested in hiring me for.
I had another composer friend who was hired to write music for a dance troupe. They never liked anything he wrote and he spent a lot of time trying different things. Finally, out of an act of desperation, he put together a more "new agey" set of pieces and they loved them.
He would never write that in a million years based on his own taste but his job was to give them something that they thought would work and was marketable.
Artists of all sorts have always walked that thin line between business and creative freedom. But if you want to be in the business of art you have to know that it is a business.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
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.
The "Progammers" are never the issue except in games with huge technical issues. It's the game designers that need to be educated on past games so that they can both embrace what gamers have loved and combine it with new ideas and it also allows them to bypass ideas that were failures in the past. It appears to be pretty rare for a coder to also be an idea man in the development process.
I absolutely agree. Which I why I say that one does not have to be a gamer to be an animator, network "code guy", etc to be great at working on the game. It's the game designers who would benefit from being "gamers".
I have known software engineers and network engineers who were skilled, but had no interest in what they did, the products they made, there was no enthusiasm no real attachment to their product. They moved widgets around, worked the hours, went home. They worked a job, not a career.
There is a marketable difference between a person who takes interest in their product and those that don't. This is common sense, it is consistently proven through pretty much most things out in the world. The person who has interest, has care in what they build tends to build a better product.
The same is with making games. I am not saying people can not be good at moving widgets, I am saying all they are doing is moving widgets and if you look at the industry, there are lots of widgets, and very few games. Having a vested interest in the product you make, regardless of what level your involvement, is always going to be more beneficial than someone who could give a shit.
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.
The "Progammers" are never the issue except in games with huge technical issues. It's the game designers that need to be educated on past games so that they can both embrace what gamers have loved and combine it with new ideas and it also allows them to bypass ideas that were failures in the past. It appears to be pretty rare for a coder to also be an idea man in the development process.
I absolutely agree. Which I why I say that one does not have to be a gamer to be an animator, network "code guy", etc to be great at working on the game. It's the game designers who would benefit from being "gamers".
I have known software engineers and network engineers who were skilled, but had no interest in what they did, the products they made, there was no enthusiasm no real attachment to their product. They moved widgets around, worked the hours, went home. They worked a job, not a career.
There is a marketable difference between a person who takes interest in their product and those that don't. This is common sense, it is consistently proven through pretty much most things out in the world. The person who has interest, has care in what they build tends to build a better product.
The same is with making games. I am not saying people can not be good at moving widgets, I am saying all they are doing is moving widgets and if you look at the industry, there are lots of widgets, and very few games. Having a vested interest in the product you make, regardless of what level your involvement, is always going to be more beneficial than someone who could give a shit.
My thought is that they are not "right" for their jobs if the actual moving of the widgets isn't their thing. I've also know programmers, including some real hardcore people who worked on the software that ran phones, and though they could care less for "the phone" they loved their part in the process. Their eyes would light up about the intricacies of what they were doing. But they could also have been writing software for any type of hardware.
There are people who are made to move widgets, they are empowered by their piece of the puzzle. That doesn't mean they have to love the end result. The only caveat there is if they actually hate the project.
Working for a company that wrote software for handhelds, the software engineers didn't really care about he handhelds but they loved their part, what they did.
If you hire a network guy you want someone who loves the idea of writing software that can interface with networks/the web. I can easily imagine people who would take pride in such a thing. But whether that helps interface "Space Lords of the Great Beyond" or some Financial institution or Medical lab is probably not necessary.
Again the caveat is if they hate the project they are working on from the point of view of completion. I dated a woman whose father was asked to build bombs. he would have been paid very well. He ended up going to Xerox. Not because his life's work was fulfilled by working on copiers and printers but because he didn't want to "make bombs".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
My thought is that they are not "right" for their jobs if the actual moving of the widgets isn't their thing. I've also know programmers, including some real hardcore people who worked on the software that ran phones, and though they could care less for "the phone" they loved their part in the process. Their eyes would light up about the intricacies of what they were doing. But they could also have been writing software for any type of hardware.
There are people who are made to move widgets, they are empowered by their piece of the puzzle. That doesn't mean they have to love the end result. The only caveat there is if they actually hate the project.
Working for a company that wrote software for handhelds, the software engineers didn't really care about he handhelds but they loved their part, what they did.
If you hire a network guy you want someone who loves the idea of writing software that can interface with networks/the web. I can easily imagine people who would take pride in such a thing. But whether that helps interface "Space Lords of the Great Beyond" or some Financial institution or Medical lab is probably not necessary.
Again the caveat is if they hate the project they are working on from the point of view of completion. I dated a woman whose father was asked to build bombs. he would have been paid very well. He ended up going to Xerox. Not because his life's work was fulfilled by working on copiers and printers but because he didn't want to "make bombs".
Part of it is the issue of interest and how that effects knowledge. In your example, understanding the phone, the hardware, various protocols it uses and how those intricacies affect the interactions gives insight that is useful, more than just knowing how to code and use the default libraries.
Maybe it is my age, but I come from a time where you would have to create your own tools from time to time because what was available was not adequate to achieve the result you were looking for. Being able to do that required knowledge of the hardware, basic protocols, and aspects of design that the standard library IDE developer these days is clueless about.
Also consider the guy writing net code, if he doesn't understand game play, or has experienced it in its setting, the various issues that occur while playing a game, how do you expect them to write a proper engine to be able to deal with those issues? I have dealt with detached guys like that, it is a nightmare because they just don't understand it.
That said, that knowledge is still useful over not having it and you don't get that knowledge these days by not having an interest in the products you create. Besides, It doesn't make any sense a person would love making apps, but care nothing about the phone. That would be like making software for a computer and not caring about the computer. Maybe it is that detached relationship that is the problem? I never knew a programmer who was worth a crap who didn't understand the hardware platform they wrote for. Maybe I am just too old. /shrug
My thought is that they are not "right" for their jobs if the actual moving of the widgets isn't their thing. I've also know programmers, including some real hardcore people who worked on the software that ran phones, and though they could care less for "the phone" they loved their part in the process. Their eyes would light up about the intricacies of what they were doing. But they could also have been writing software for any type of hardware.
There are people who are made to move widgets, they are empowered by their piece of the puzzle. That doesn't mean they have to love the end result. The only caveat there is if they actually hate the project.
Working for a company that wrote software for handhelds, the software engineers didn't really care about he handhelds but they loved their part, what they did.
If you hire a network guy you want someone who loves the idea of writing software that can interface with networks/the web. I can easily imagine people who would take pride in such a thing. But whether that helps interface "Space Lords of the Great Beyond" or some Financial institution or Medical lab is probably not necessary.
Again the caveat is if they hate the project they are working on from the point of view of completion. I dated a woman whose father was asked to build bombs. he would have been paid very well. He ended up going to Xerox. Not because his life's work was fulfilled by working on copiers and printers but because he didn't want to "make bombs".
Part of it is the issue of interest and how that effects knowledge. In your example, understanding the phone, the hardware, various protocols it uses and how those intricacies affect the interactions gives insight that is useful, more than just knowing how to code and use the default libraries.
Maybe it is my age, but I come from a time where you would have to create your own tools from time to time because what was available was not adequate to achieve the result you were looking for. Being able to do that required knowledge of the hardware, basic protocols, and aspects of design that the standard library IDE developer these days is clueless about.
Also consider the guy writing net code, if he doesn't understand game play, or has experienced it in its setting, the various issues that occur while playing a game, how do you expect them to write a proper engine to be able to deal with those issues? I have dealt with detached guys like that, it is a nightmare because they just don't understand it.
That said, that knowledge is still useful over not having it and you don't get that knowledge these days by not having an interest in the products you create. Besides, It doesn't make any sense a person would love making apps, but care nothing about the phone. That would be like making software for a computer and not caring about the computer. Maybe it is that detached relationship that is the problem? I never knew a programmer who was worth a crap who didn't understand the hardware platform they wrote for. Maybe I am just too old. /shrug
Well, let's look at it this way.
Every day/week/month, thousands of professional musicians show up in concert halls, theaters, "whatever" venue in order to rehearse and then perform various shows.
Can one really think that all those highly paid, highly trained musicians, many attending the top conservatories in the world are really excited to play "Rocky the musical"? Or "Kinky Boots"?
Oh I imagine some find it hella fun but my experience with professional musicians is that they show up and do the job. A friend of my, a violinist, played a bit of the Josh Groban Concert when it was in the area. I can assure you, he is absolutely not a fan of Josh Groban. But he is a musician and a pro and he showed up and did the part, just like all the others.
Sometimes it's about being professional and just doing your job.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Sometimes it's about being professional and just doing your job.
Innovation is not achieved by those "just doing their job" and part of the point of this discussion is that the industry is filled with "professionals" making games that greatly show they are "just doing their job". /shrug
I have known software engineers and network engineers who were skilled, but had no interest in what they did, the products they made, there was no enthusiasm no real attachment to their product. They moved widgets around, worked the hours, went home. They worked a job, not a career.
There is a marketable difference between a person who takes interest in their product and those that don't. This is common sense, it is consistently proven through pretty much most things out in the world. The person who has interest, has care in what they build tends to build a better product.
The same is with making games. I am not saying people can not be good at moving widgets, I am saying all they are doing is moving widgets and if you look at the industry, there are lots of widgets, and very few games. Having a vested interest in the product you make, regardless of what level your involvement, is always going to be more beneficial than someone who could give a shit.
Oh my... Do you realize that vast majority of software developers do not use products they make? It's not even feasible ffs...they build internal apps they have no use for nor access to.
Oh my... Do you realize that vast majority of software developers do not use products they make? It's not even feasible ffs...they build internal apps they have no use for nor access to.
Oh my, do you realize that such a point has no bearing on the point I was making?
Oh my, do you realize that such a point has no bearing on the point I was making?
It entirely invalidates your point but considering how flawed your point is, I guess I should not expect you to understand presented rebuttal...
Okey, here is the hint: It is not the interest in product you make but work you do.
I disagree, pointed out why, gave examples of how this is not the case. But hey, I guess you had to move to something else considering you were being schooled in your other points right?
Don't you have some Microtransaction game to be playing?
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.
MMO taking +5 years to develop, cost considerable amount of money and provide no returns until the game is released, if ever, and even the market is highly competitve, bearing high risk for the venture.
I think your perception what consists of "make as much money as possible, as quickly as possible" is fairly absurd.
I won't even comment on your converstion of likes to subscribers and over simplified structure of expenses, however there is one thing I want to add.
To release a game is not as much of an issue as it is to keep it successfuly going. Business won't survive, or not for very long, just by breaking even, you need to make enough money so you can invest it back into a project. This isn't easy task and especially difficult for indie projects.
While limited sample, thus not entirely valid but just to demonstrate the point - EVE Online.
CCP started with very small team but they were capable to pull out two major expansions per years since launch until about 2011. The game was adding content at incredible pace and game population kept growing. In 2011, they stopped expanding the game and the game fell into a stagnation that turned into a decline very briefly after.
You need constantly improving and expanding your business or you are left behind and die, and this why you need your game to make "lots" of money, not just to pay for your bills.
Add in that while the desire to have your MMO last forever, the reality is that every entertainment venue, real or virtual, has a life cycle. Part of that revenue has to go toward the next project because bonus day is a lot more fun than pink slip day for everyone involved.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
You need to subtract taxes and development costs (excluding salaries) like hardware, software licenses etc. (some have yearly subscription), from all numbers You gave
Right, which is why I said it was an estimated amount at 10k subscribers minus expenses (which I did mention, but didn't break out specifically except for salaries - just got lazy with the etc.). For the most part, in this thread, people are arguing for 250k+ subscribers. I was clarifying that Pantheon, or any other game that would try to mimic EQ would not need nearly that amount to be successful with a limited team.
@Rastapastor, hardware is a really less of an issue these days. Most of the development can be done on what would qualify as a medium to high end gaming rig these days. As far as I know the majority of the development up to this point has been done on their own personal computers. Software license is extremely minor. Unity engine is $1500 one time lifetime fee, and can be deployed on 2 PC's. So, assuming they have 15 people (likely not all of them need to have unity license either), at best we're talking about $11,000 for the lifetime of the project. The other option is to pay $75/mo and again have it installed on 2 pc's. So, for 15 people, you would pay roughly $560/mo for development costs of licensing the engine.
Yes there are other things, 3d studio max, etc etc etc. But realistically those things are relatively minor this day in age. They might only have 2 or 3 3d modellers in a company of 25.
Bandwidth needs for MMOs is pretty minor. I remember back around 2007 some company did an estimate of WoW's profits and calculated they made around 76 cents on the dollar. That was after accounting for server costs, bandwidth, and primarily customer service (which Blizzard was heads and tails above most companies, in so much that they actually had people you could talk to). Which they stated was the vast majority of their operating costs.
So with a smaller game like this, communicating via reddit, forums, etc. They will likely have far fewer customer concerns (due to a much less entitled userbase), I really don't foresee day to day operating expenses being that big of a piece of the pie for them.
with 30-50k they could easily support a 25 man team, with good content generation, expansions, etc.
You did not mention taxes. Don't know how is it in USA, but in Poland companies have to pay 19% income tax. I think 50k subs is enough to sustain 25 man team. Anyways i agree with most of Your post, but in any calculations You have to take all stuff not simple 50 000 * 20$ = 1 000 000 .
Comments
Companies, yes. It's certainly not a lack of understanding, it's a great understanding that dissuades development companies from chasing niches. That being said, small, grass-roots development companies, crowdfunding, etc. will produce some games. So I guess that's a positive.
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
----------------
....or posters who focus mainly on the negative aspects of the older games to prove a point while ignoring all of the good stuff they offered and would still be appreciated today by a sizeable enough audience to make it profitable. Changing times does no equate to zero sum audience.
Releasing = burning through the budget, still no money made. Tough part is to make profit which can only happen years after release.
My point about development cycle was clearly aimed at your notion of MMOs being made for "as quickly as possible", they are not. MMOs are long term investment by all means.
Why developers do not make EQ-like games? It was already answered - EQ is the thing of the past, players moved on, developers followed and moved on as well. The rest of my post was adding to the matter a simple point: You can't aim low.
People think that if big company makes "n" money and have "x" expenses, you can just make a project that will cost x/10 and will have n/10 revenue and it will be enough to make it "successful". That is simply not true because money that goes in and out do not scale the same with project size.
Seems like even Bradley McQuaid is aware of that and he certainly isn't aiming low with his small team and 30-50k subscribers. But it is imo a pipe dream.
I am not arguing any specific numbers, I was just pointing out that it isn't all that simple as saying: "Oh, we don't need +250k subscribers".
In fact, you need as many subscribers as possible(like anyone else) and going for niche and having small team significantly hinders your pursue.
Also, statistically speaking, your chances to succeed increase with money you put into a project.
The same thing was said about turn based games, that they were a thing of the past, that players moved on and that there was no way a company could be successful at it, yet...
Right, because there's been so many games built like EQ since 1999 that proves that you're correct.
And you have proof of this? Successful start-up companies in a variety of business ventures with little to no overhead suggest otherwise.
And here's the statement that invalidates your postings previous to this - "IMO", so it's just that you disagree that it will be successful, not that it can't.
As Hrimrir touched on earlier in this thread with his music industry comparison, the problem is large companies with big money investors want to chase the maximum number of subscribers. Pantheon isn't trying to be a mass-appeal game. So, as long as the Pantheon team again can develop the game (the most difficult part) and the investors are on-board with the niche game - it has the realistic chance of being successful.
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
Have you ever "sold" some manifestation of art? I have.
I've had commissions where specific groups wanted certain things. they essentially hired me to create specific types of music.
I could have pulled the "artiste" and say "no, that's not what I'm about and you will get what you get" but that's not what they were interested in hiring me for.
I had another composer friend who was hired to write music for a dance troupe. They never liked anything he wrote and he spent a lot of time trying different things. Finally, out of an act of desperation, he put together a more "new agey" set of pieces and they loved them.
He would never write that in a million years based on his own taste but his job was to give them something that they thought would work and was marketable.
Artists of all sorts have always walked that thin line between business and creative freedom. But if you want to be in the business of art you have to know that it is a business.
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
There is a marketable difference between a person who takes interest in their product and those that don't. This is common sense, it is consistently proven through pretty much most things out in the world. The person who has interest, has care in what they build tends to build a better product.
The same is with making games. I am not saying people can not be good at moving widgets, I am saying all they are doing is moving widgets and if you look at the industry, there are lots of widgets, and very few games. Having a vested interest in the product you make, regardless of what level your involvement, is always going to be more beneficial than someone who could give a shit.
There are people who are made to move widgets, they are empowered by their piece of the puzzle. That doesn't mean they have to love the end result. The only caveat there is if they actually hate the project.
Working for a company that wrote software for handhelds, the software engineers didn't really care about he handhelds but they loved their part, what they did.
If you hire a network guy you want someone who loves the idea of writing software that can interface with networks/the web. I can easily imagine people who would take pride in such a thing. But whether that helps interface "Space Lords of the Great Beyond" or some Financial institution or Medical lab is probably not necessary.
Again the caveat is if they hate the project they are working on from the point of view of completion. I dated a woman whose father was asked to build bombs. he would have been paid very well. He ended up going to Xerox. Not because his life's work was fulfilled by working on copiers and printers but because he didn't want to "make bombs".
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
Part of it is the issue of interest and how that effects knowledge. In your example, understanding the phone, the hardware, various protocols it uses and how those intricacies affect the interactions gives insight that is useful, more than just knowing how to code and use the default libraries.
Maybe it is my age, but I come from a time where you would have to create your own tools from time to time because what was available was not adequate to achieve the result you were looking for. Being able to do that required knowledge of the hardware, basic protocols, and aspects of design that the standard library IDE developer these days is clueless about.
Also consider the guy writing net code, if he doesn't understand game play, or has experienced it in its setting, the various issues that occur while playing a game, how do you expect them to write a proper engine to be able to deal with those issues? I have dealt with detached guys like that, it is a nightmare because they just don't understand it.
That said, that knowledge is still useful over not having it and you don't get that knowledge these days by not having an interest in the products you create. Besides, It doesn't make any sense a person would love making apps, but care nothing about the phone. That would be like making software for a computer and not caring about the computer. Maybe it is that detached relationship that is the problem? I never knew a programmer who was worth a crap who didn't understand the hardware platform they wrote for. Maybe I am just too old. /shrug
Every day/week/month, thousands of professional musicians show up in concert halls, theaters, "whatever" venue in order to rehearse and then perform various shows.
Can one really think that all those highly paid, highly trained musicians, many attending the top conservatories in the world are really excited to play "Rocky the musical"? Or "Kinky Boots"?
Oh I imagine some find it hella fun but my experience with professional musicians is that they show up and do the job. A friend of my, a violinist, played a bit of the Josh Groban Concert when it was in the area. I can assure you, he is absolutely not a fan of Josh Groban. But he is a musician and a pro and he showed up and did the part, just like all the others.
Sometimes it's about being professional and just doing your job.
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
Okey, here is the hint: It is not the interest in product you make but work you do.
Don't you have some Microtransaction game to be playing?
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
By the way, there is this old saying: "Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics, even if you win, you are still retarded"
Good luck champion!
/boggle
I am fascinated by your rather uncharacteristic resolve here, Sov.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
"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
you're right, it isn't great. no arguments here.