You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink...
You talk about open world this and that... well there are a plethora of MMOs with an open world... players just choose not to go out in it.
PVP... more people despise it than like it.
Hard content versus easy... MMOs that try to do "hard" haven't managed to find all those hard core types that seemingly beg for such content.
In a nutshell, what people say and what people do are often entirely different... thus whatever anyone is begging for is usually the last thing they want... OP's conclusions included.
Sure many games have had an open world but then those same games destroy their own open worlds. For an open world to be successful a game needs various things. It needs the leveling curve NOT to be rushed at all and levels should take time. In no way should anyone be able to reach max level in a day or two.... or even a week of solid grind. What a slow leveling system does is make gear far more important through the levels and lower levels of spells/skills (if there is a system for better versions out there like EQ2). This makes players focus instead of a fast level grind where gear and such pre max level is really useless instead focus on gear and upgrades to advance them in leveling easier. Also systems for leveling such as FATES in FFXIV:ARR where nothing else can compare to its leveling speed need to be removed instead focusing on normal kill exp with with potentially bonus's for dungeons. Fast travel methods are also an open world killer as well as are quest chains. Quests can be all good but shouldn't be the way to level from 1-max level but instead be a bit of fluff and filler instead while doing other things. In the end this is all about slowing things down significantly.
PVP, yes.... more people hate pvp then like it and many of those who like pvp only like occasional pvp. A very small crowd really are hardcore pvp fans and rarely they stick around unless they are in the top. The PvPers cause far more problems talking on *balance* where balance is a team effort and NOT a class effort. Every class should NOT be balanced and as such each should have its strengths and weakness's which will mean if pvping vs someones weakness (such as a melee vs a ranged) then likely that melee should be squashed 9/10 times.
Content should be hard but shouldn't be limited to just endgame content. Anything after the learning range of say the first 10 levels of a 50 level release game should be getting harder. Even soloing should be hard for most come mid level unless one happens to play that specific class or two designed for solo play. Groups should never be able to just run through and squash everything with ease but should need a balance and work from players thinking rather then mashing top dps/heal/tank buttons until exp and loot is awarded. Most content should be centered around group play after the learning newbie levels.
Looking at all the greats and what made them great this is exactly why. Players enjoy teamwork when they get to make a regular group of friends, aren't stressed to reach max level, are allowed and even encouraged to explore and adventure, and when they can get fancy duds that are a bit rare to show off and especially that very rare fancy dud.
EQ2 tried to bring some of this back with the TLE servers and had an amazing time at it. In the end though they still failed hardcore on bringing back difficulty as changes made throughout the games history simply didn't allow the first couple of expacs to have any real difficulty left. They failed also with shoving cash shop Vitality Potions down people's throats where leveling was super fast with them and without them it was so very slow you would be under-leveled of your group in a day if they used and you didn't. The choice of 5 levels a day or 1/2 a level a day just made a nightmare rush. Simply put they failed to really bring back that old nostalgia of an old mmorpg adventure/explore game. But still wherever you went there were people none the less.
Developing an MMO costs a lot of time and money. Before a developer risks all that time and money on a "difficult open world PvP MMO", you're going to have to PROVE that such a thing really would make a lot of money.
Archeage's (and I'll argue, Wildstar as well) initial success may have proved that housing and crafting can draw in a crowd initally, but neither of those prove anything about difficulty or PvP.
If anything, Wildstar proved that while some people might WANT difficulty that relies on extreme interaction, they'll find it tastes terrible once they actually get it (I'm aware that Wildstar failed for many different reasons. However, quite a few people said that, even if you ignored the stupid attunement system and terrible itemization, the raids really were too friggin' hard and required too much interaction).
Archeage in regards to evidence of potential success for PvP meanwhile is a mixed bag, and that's being generous. For every person gushing about it back when it was new and hot, I saw several others saying they quit the game over it. I doubt most developers would rush to spend their time and money on a PvP MMO on such flimsy evidence, myself.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink...
You talk about open world this and that... well there are a plethora of MMOs with an open world... players just choose not to go out in it.
PVP... more people despise it than like it.
Hard content versus easy... MMOs that try to do "hard" haven't managed to find all those hard core types that seemingly beg for such content.
In a nutshell, what people say and what people do are often entirely different... thus whatever anyone is begging for is usually the last thing they want... OP's conclusions included.
Sometimes that water is sh*t.
And sometimes that water is perfectly fine, but people don't want to drink it because there's a smudge on the glass it's in.
MMORPG players are probably the most anal-retentive group of gamers out there. I think any game development company which wants to create an MMORPG either hates themselves, or is completely insane. Most likely both.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink...
You talk about open world this and that... well there are a plethora of MMOs with an open world... players just choose not to go out in it.
PVP... more people despise it than like it.
Hard content versus easy... MMOs that try to do "hard" haven't managed to find all those hard core types that seemingly beg for such content.
In a nutshell, what people say and what people do are often entirely different... thus whatever anyone is begging for is usually the last thing they want... OP's conclusions included.
Sometimes that water is sh*t.
And sometimes that water is perfectly fine, but people don't want to drink it because there's a smudge on the glass it's in.
MMORPG players are probably the most anal-retentive group of gamers out there. I think any game development company which wants to create an MMORPG either hates themselves, or is completely insane. Most likely both.
No the game are just bad technically, bad mechanics and playability. Many of them have poor vision of might makes right free for all PvP which doesn't work in MMORPG. The wolves drive off the sheep and wolves don't like killing other wolves. There is no accountability. Archeage is P2W so that's a no go for lot of westerns.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink...
You talk about open world this and that... well there are a plethora of MMOs with an open world... players just choose not to go out in it.
PVP... more people despise it than like it.
Hard content versus easy... MMOs that try to do "hard" haven't managed to find all those hard core types that seemingly beg for such content.
In a nutshell, what people say and what people do are often entirely different... thus whatever anyone is begging for is usually the last thing they want... OP's conclusions included.
Sometimes that water is sh*t.
Nice summary. So you agree with the above poster that open world PvP MMOs are shit?
Nope. Just that many of the games on the market are shit. Telling us to play shitty games because their the right type is stupid.
Well if you try apple pie and you don't like it, and you try key lime pie and you don't like it, and you try chocolate pie and you don't like it. Maybe you just like the idea of pie but you really don't like pie.
Maybe you would prefer a nice FPS cake, or MOBA torte instead?
Not all games are created equal. I get told all the time that there are sandbox games. Most of them suck for reason unrelated to being sandboxes. They just suck as games. I am too slow now for FPS and I don't like MOBA.
I hear people saying that. But it's said about every sandbox PvP MMO... There hasn't been a smash open world PvP game period. I think what proponents are looking for isn't well made open-world PvP, but the loop-holed and exploitable early efforts of UO and EVE, because well, the best way to PvP is to go straight to the other guy's RL account, or cause as much grief as possible in-game.
There are like 2 or 3 smash hit western MMORPG period. UO and SWG had respectable numbers.
If there is a bad themepark game nobody expect you to play it. For sandbox players the pickings are slim. But we're told to play them because thas all they are. Game usually creates by amateurs that are buggy messes like Mortal or Darkfall.
I don't even like MOBA's and I've been playing league for years because MMORPG's are so bad right now. In fact, i have a group of 10 or so friends who love MMO's but are all waiting for a decent one to come out. I have a feeling we are not alone.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink...
You talk about open world this and that... well there are a plethora of MMOs with an open world... players just choose not to go out in it.
PVP... more people despise it than like it.
Hard content versus easy... MMOs that try to do "hard" haven't managed to find all those hard core types that seemingly beg for such content.
In a nutshell, what people say and what people do are often entirely different... thus whatever anyone is begging for is usually the last thing they want... OP's conclusions included.
Sometimes that water is sh*t.
Nice summary. So you agree with the above poster that open world PvP MMOs are shit?
Nope. Just that many of the games on the market are shit. Telling us to play shitty games because their the right type is stupid.
Well if you try apple pie and you don't like it, and you try key lime pie and you don't like it, and you try chocolate pie and you don't like it. Maybe you just like the idea of pie but you really don't like pie.
Maybe you would prefer a nice FPS cake, or MOBA torte instead?
Not all games are created equal. I get told all the time that there are sandbox games. Most of them suck for reason unrelated to being sandboxes. They just suck as games. I am too slow now for FPS and I don't like MOBA.
I hear people saying that. But it's said about every sandbox PvP MMO... There hasn't been a smash open world PvP game period. I think what proponents are looking for isn't well made open-world PvP, but the loop-holed and exploitable early efforts of UO and EVE, because well, the best way to PvP is to go straight to the other guy's RL account, or cause as much grief as possible in-game.
There are like 2 or 3 smash hit western MMORPG period. UO and SWG had respectable numbers.
If there is a bad themepark game nobody expect you to play it. For sandbox players the pickings are slim. But we're told to play them because thas all they are. Game usually creates by amateurs that are buggy messes like Mortal or Darkfall.
Both UO and SWG's numbers fell way below themepark numbers, and UO was the only game in town at the time, and SWG had the weight of Star Wars behind it and still did less than half of EQ (250k vs 600k)
Sandboxes have never had the appeal themeparks have had and add PvP and the disparity grows even more pronounced.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire: Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
Yea, UO wasn't a smash hit. It was a game with like, 200k subscribers back when there weren't any other games. And when you think about how Everquest had 600k subscribers AFTER there were other games, 200k subscribers when there weren't any other games is really really terrible. I mean, REALLY terrible.
"Yea, we got 200k subscribers when there was no competition!!!!! And now those new guys have twice that many after competition has come along!" That's not something to be proud of.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Both UO and SWG's numbers fell way below themepark numbers, and UO was the only game in town at the time, and SWG had the weight of Star Wars behind it and still did less than half of EQ (250k vs 600k)
Sandboxes have never had the appeal themeparks have had and add PvP and the disparity grows even more pronounced.
More like 300 to like 500. You do realize most games don't peak over 500k?
Sandbox has never been given a modern chance. The vast majority of MMORPG players are WoW players. The few games that have peaked over 500k all were WoW clones outside of Eve. Lot of those that did crashed and burned in a couple of months. Its not really a good comparison because WoW outshines all other MMORPG. But you're line of thinking has lead to the genre being over saturated with bad imitations instead of sandboxes and other types of MMORPG.
Hmmmm, hundred of millions of people are playing totally instanced games with fairly balanced pvp like LoL, while a game like ArchAge that has totally unbalanced, gear-based open world pvp and a vast open world that lets players basically do what they want has deserted severs after a few months, and the lesson you derive from that is that mmos need to be more like AA or an old game that had a peak population of about 250,000 players?
Scratches head.
I would be playing Archeage if it wasn't P2W.
Not saying AA or OWPVP games are bad, just saying that the OP doesn't make any sense. The logic he uses means that mmos should be more like LOL etc.
He even points to why players might leave OWPVP games : "every cribaby that cried a river cause a PK killed him is gone to League of Legends", but he believes games should have more potential for ganking - its totally contradictory.
He equates low populations in mmos with failure, but his example of an ideal mmo is Ultima Online with at its peak had only 250,000 players.
In fact I wonder if I have actually been trolled by the OP.....
Yea, UO wasn't a smash hit. It was a game with like, 200k subscribers back when there weren't any other games. And when you think about how Everquest had 600k subscribers AFTER there were other games, 200k subscribers when there weren't any other games is really really terrible. I mean, REALLY terrible.
"Yea, we got 200k subscribers when there was no competition!!!!! And now those new guys have twice that many after competition has come along!" That's not something to be proud of.
This is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read. When UO came out half the country (probably a lot more than half honestly) didn't even have an internet connection. Of the half who did, none had ever paid a subscription fee to play a game online, most had probably never spent one cent online. It was an entirely different world. When you say thing like what I've quoted you make it apparent to everyone who was actually alive and cognizant when UO was around that you have no idea what you are talking about.
If EQ had been the first MMO it wouldn't have had 600k subs, the market wasn't that developed yet. UO was the game that made the market. Yes it enjoyed less success than later games which launched into an increasingly developed market. Maybe you think WAR would have sold a million boxes if the market hadn't already been grown to such a degree by WoW?
Nothing you said makes any sense in reality, please just stop.
The devs are just fine. It's players like the OP that are stuck in the past that are making themselves miserable. I hate to say it buddy, but the genre's moved on without you, and it's bigger than ever.
MOBAs, FPS and sports games will ALWAYS dominate their less popular and far more nerdy and time consuming cousins; the MMORPGs and even the regular RPGs for that matter. They are genres based on instant gratification and action, that a slower paced game can't compare with when it comes to mass appeal.
Also... @Velocinox Your signature quotes are full of win! They always amuse me. :P
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
I think most anyone paying attention has seen a terrible retention rate in games.
It is however a two part mix,one just bad games but gamer's that make very poor judgement calls when jumping in on any new game.If these 500k-2million don't randomly jump in on every new game,they never worry about losing 500k-2million because the games are just not good enough.
When i buy a game or enter a commitment i stick to it for a long time.I make good judgement calls on quality of games,i don't just randomly wave my arms in the air screaming "amazing !! every time some new game gets hyped.I have had so much experience in games it is sickening,i can tell very quickly if a game is a rubbish sell job or if the developer actually put some quality effort into it.
I guess the other part is MANY people are way too easily excited,they see open pvp loot and they are all over that game like bees on honey.Doesn't matter the game is utter crap they just see what excites them and they are in.I believe there is a term for it spontaneous something.I don't see the trend stopping,maybe people just have a lot of money to waste,so all these crap games will keep making profits because tons are willing to throw their money away.
Somebody just posted the other day he has like 30 games on Steam that he has never played and i know the data research showed Steam has around a 30% total of games purchased and never played.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I agree that they just terrible . For example PK , i get tired of all allow to PK MMORPG that the prey don't have tool to fight back . You have no tool to hunt down the player killer and there are no risk in PK . Basically you can keep harassing people , trolling until they quit because they have no ways to fight back .
Look those developers chase they own tails make me Lol , while feel very ironic
Look at archeage sea PVP , the ganker wait people at port instead of go out the sea to find prey . Or the fishing , it's fine for fishing boat allow you keep more fish , but the fishing radar total ruin the game Or quest hub for solo player in PVP field .
I just don't want to say anymore , just remember those thing make me wonder ...
The devs are just fine. It's players like the OP that are stuck in the past that are making themselves miserable. I hate to say it buddy, but the genre's moved on without you, and it's bigger than ever.
Saying the devs are fine is obviously purely opinion, but certainly some are good some are bad. Actually nothing you say is explicitly untrue, but the way you say it paints a picture of reality that's the opposite of what I see. Sure there are a lot more MMOs out there than there were 10 years ago but most of them are ghost town cash crab whalebaits. The only MMO that stays somewhat stable is EVE and according to detractors nobody wants to play games with high learning curves, steep death penalties, slow action, long time investments or whatever. Even WoW is bleeding HUGE amounts of subs.
Yea the industry is larger, its full of lots and lots of garbage in every flavor you can imagine. Kinda funny that the most popular upcoming MMOS are all trying to bring back mechanics and ideas from games that predated WoW to revive the 'bigger than ever' MMO industry. I guess everyone doesn't feel the same as you, there seems to be quite a huge amount of money and support being thrown behind 'old' development ideas and developers. We'll see how the next batch of 'WoW-backlash' MMOs compare to the WARs and SWTORs that tried to emulate the WoW formula.
Comparing success elements of MOBAS vs MMORPGs is a bit like comparing the success of orange juice vs prune juice.
You nailed it. There's a lot of hypocrisy in the OPs post. If anything is going to kill Archeage and B&S, it's the PvP, and yet he blames the PvE carebears for the impending demise of MMORPGs. An MMORPG without content is not an MMORPG, its a console FPS game.
Last I looked there are a whole many more PvE centric MMORPG's succeeding than there are PvP centric MMORPG's. The only thing that developers, and PvP centric folk, are not getting is that PvE and PvP do not mix in an MMORPG. PvE MMORPG's can survive just fine without PvP. The same can not be said the other way 'round.
While I don't disagree with your sentiment per se, consider: the popularity of PvP multiplayer games (not specific to MMORPGs) heavily dwarfs the popularity of PvE multiplayer games. And, in the vast majority of those PvP games, there is very little to no PvE whatsoever. In comparison, the larger majority of PvE-centric games do include PvP (and usually with a fair amount of dev time dedicated to its implementation).
I would imagine developers, when making a decision in regards to including a PvP element or not, consider just how many more folks enjoy playing against (and not just with) other folks online.
There is definitely a discussion to be had regarding how the two types of gameplay interact. However, I think it a bit too general to claim that PvE is the reigning king of gameplay types for MMORPGs (when the genre is considered from the perspective of multiplayer games in general).
Both UO and SWG's numbers fell way below themepark numbers, and UO was the only game in town at the time, and SWG had the weight of Star Wars behind it and still did less than half of EQ (250k vs 600k)
Sandboxes have never had the appeal themeparks have had and add PvP and the disparity grows even more pronounced.
Sandbox has never been given a modern chance. The vast majority of MMORPG players are WoW players. The few games that have peaked over 500k all were WoW clones outside of Eve. Lot of those that did crashed and burned in a couple of months. Its not really a good comparison because WoW outshines all other MMORPG. But you're line of thinking has lead to the genre being over saturated with bad imitations instead of sandboxes and other types of MMORPG.
It's been given several chances, they all learn the same lesson; Players want FREEDOM! until someone else uses FREEDOM! to mess with the first player's FREEDOM!
This isn't about copying others, you're resorting to a straw man argument because you can't support your own assertions.
This is about sandboxes don't do as well as themeparks and PvP sandboxes do even worse. And even if we use your own sourceless and vaguely pulled-from-your-ass-smelling numbers, The first sandbox MMO with all the power of Star Wars couldn't pull in the numbers of it's Themepark cousin. Even though it sold twice as many boxes (1 million) the vast majority of those buyers logged in, saw there was no star wars and it was more a hairstyling simulator than a Star Wars adventure logged back out and never looked back.
It was a failure despite all the rose colored glasses remembering a perfect game in a perfect setting with perfect rules.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire: Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
Both UO and SWG's numbers fell way below themepark numbers, and UO was the only game in town at the time, and SWG had the weight of Star Wars behind it and still did less than half of EQ (250k vs 600k)
Sandboxes have never had the appeal themeparks have had and add PvP and the disparity grows even more pronounced.
Sandbox has never been given a modern chance. The vast majority of MMORPG players are WoW players. The few games that have peaked over 500k all were WoW clones outside of Eve. Lot of those that did crashed and burned in a couple of months. Its not really a good comparison because WoW outshines all other MMORPG. But you're line of thinking has lead to the genre being over saturated with bad imitations instead of sandboxes and other types of MMORPG.
It's been given several chances, they all learn the same lesson; Players want FREEDOM! until someone else uses FREEDOM! to mess with the first player's FREEDOM!
This isn't about copying others, you're resorting to a straw man argument because you can't support your own assertions.
This is about sandboxes don't do as well as themeparks and PvP sandboxes do even worse. And even if we use your own sourceless and vaguely pulled-from-your-ass-smelling numbers, The first sandbox MMO with all the power of Star Wars couldn't pull in the numbers of it's Themepark cousin. Even though it sold twice as many boxes (1 million) the vast majority of those buyers logged in, saw there was no star wars and it was more a hairstyling simulator than a Star Wars adventure logged back out and never looked back.
It was a failure despite all the rose colored glasses remembering a perfect game in a perfect setting with perfect rules.
You can look it up yourself. Where is the soutce for your numbers? It's obvious when majority of current gamers came in with WoW with like 90+ million played over 12 years. Before WoW 500k of EQ was king.
There were games like Rift and especially Age of Conan and Warhammer online peaked above 500k but dropped way below in a few months. So how many western MMORPG are above 500k? STWOR, WoW, GW2, Eve (maybe) are the only ones I can think of. That's the reality of the genre. It's niche outside of handful of games and some games in Asia.
And no freedom hasn't been done in a MMORPG outside poor indie attempts and few early games that didn't have modern gameplay or interfaces. Closest thing is Archeage which you basically have to spend hundreds in RL money to compete in PVP.
WoW changed what success in this market was supposed to be. Problem is nobody has lived up to it. But it didn't stop emulation because why invest in a market with 500k potential if that vs. going for 13 million with a themepark imitation. But the vast majority of those games are still under 500k not subs but active F2P users.
There are like 2 or 3 smash hit western MMORPG period. UO and SWG had respectable numbers.
If there is a bad themepark game nobody expect you to play it. For sandbox players the pickings are slim. But we're told to play them because thas all they are. Game usually creates by amateurs that are buggy messes like Mortal or Darkfall.
Both UO and SWG's numbers fell way below themepark numbers, and UO was the only game in town at the time, and SWG had the weight of Star Wars behind it and still did less than half of EQ (250k vs 600k)
Sandboxes have never had the appeal themeparks have had and add PvP and the disparity grows even more pronounced.
SWG launched in 2003; are you old enough to be aware of the state of the internet let alone this genre at that time? There was like 10%-11% of the world's population using the internet compared to virtually half the planet nowadays. Can you manage that difference in your head all on your own?
There was no YouTube, no Twitter, no iTunes, the internet was a completely different entity.
Comparing the number of people playing MMOs from those years to now is beyond shortsighted and foolish to put it extremely politely.
So enough with these dumb ass irrelevant numbers you're throwing on the table. You're not even remotely close to proving your point.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
There are like 2 or 3 smash hit western MMORPG period. UO and SWG had respectable numbers.
If there is a bad themepark game nobody expect you to play it. For sandbox players the pickings are slim. But we're told to play them because thas all they are. Game usually creates by amateurs that are buggy messes like Mortal or Darkfall.
Both UO and SWG's numbers fell way below themepark numbers, and UO was the only game in town at the time, and SWG had the weight of Star Wars behind it and still did less than half of EQ (250k vs 600k)
Sandboxes have never had the appeal themeparks have had and add PvP and the disparity grows even more pronounced.
SWG launched in 2003; are you old enough to be aware of the state of the internet let alone this genre at that time? There was like 10%-11% of the world's population using the internet compared to virtually half the planet nowadays. Can you manage that difference in your head all on your own?
There was no YouTube, no Twitter, no iTunes, the internet was a completely different entity.
Comparing the number of people playing MMOs from those years to now is beyond shortsighted and foolish to put it extremely politely.
So enough with these dumb ass irrelevant numbers you're throwing on the table. You're not even remotely close to proving your point.
Saying it's irrelevant is a bit of a stretch. Let's not forget that WoW ran right alongside these titles, so saying that it's irrelevant because 10% of the world had the Internet at that point is, in itself, irrelevant. WoW had 3-5 times the number of people of SWG or UO within months of launch. If ANYTHING we could make the assumption that those who wanted to play these games got the Internet, based on the fact that WoWs numbers have not scaled linearly with that of the Internet.
To say that what "the people" want is an SWG or UO is, actually, completely unfounded and foolish itself. There have been ZERO metrics which show that an open world with that sort of freedom is what people are looking for. It very well could be what you want, but there aren't any large-scale examples that would support it. So while I can appreciate that there was no YouTube or Twitter or iTunes back then, but NGE was pure evidence that the market was smaller than expected and that there were bigger markets out there.
By all means, if you've got some game that I'm not aware of (please don't say Minecraft) that's a sandbox and has mass appeal, fire away. However, to say that sandbox has the same mass appeal as a themepark is ridiculous.
SWG launched in 2003; are you old enough to be aware of the state of the internet let alone this genre at that time? There was like 10%-11% of the world's population using the internet compared to virtually half the planet nowadays. Can you manage that difference in your head all on your own?
There was no YouTube, no Twitter, no iTunes, the internet was a completely different entity.
Comparing the number of people playing MMOs from those years to now is beyond shortsighted and foolish to put it extremely politely.
So enough with these dumb ass irrelevant numbers you're throwing on the table. You're not even remotely close to proving your point.
Well, Wow survived, SWG died. I'm not sure what more to say.
Do you know what's the most popular mmorpg in korea for the last 18 years? Lineage.
IF there was a magical huge and lucrative unserved niche that could support AAA budgeted titles, someone would immediately serve it. Simply because it would be a great opportunity to sell products without any competition, which is almost like a miracle in today's oversaturated market.
Comments
Sure many games have had an open world but then those same games destroy their own open worlds. For an open world to be successful a game needs various things. It needs the leveling curve NOT to be rushed at all and levels should take time. In no way should anyone be able to reach max level in a day or two.... or even a week of solid grind. What a slow leveling system does is make gear far more important through the levels and lower levels of spells/skills (if there is a system for better versions out there like EQ2). This makes players focus instead of a fast level grind where gear and such pre max level is really useless instead focus on gear and upgrades to advance them in leveling easier. Also systems for leveling such as FATES in FFXIV:ARR where nothing else can compare to its leveling speed need to be removed instead focusing on normal kill exp with with potentially bonus's for dungeons. Fast travel methods are also an open world killer as well as are quest chains. Quests can be all good but shouldn't be the way to level from 1-max level but instead be a bit of fluff and filler instead while doing other things. In the end this is all about slowing things down significantly.
PVP, yes.... more people hate pvp then like it and many of those who like pvp only like occasional pvp. A very small crowd really are hardcore pvp fans and rarely they stick around unless they are in the top. The PvPers cause far more problems talking on *balance* where balance is a team effort and NOT a class effort. Every class should NOT be balanced and as such each should have its strengths and weakness's which will mean if pvping vs someones weakness (such as a melee vs a ranged) then likely that melee should be squashed 9/10 times.
Content should be hard but shouldn't be limited to just endgame content. Anything after the learning range of say the first 10 levels of a 50 level release game should be getting harder. Even soloing should be hard for most come mid level unless one happens to play that specific class or two designed for solo play. Groups should never be able to just run through and squash everything with ease but should need a balance and work from players thinking rather then mashing top dps/heal/tank buttons until exp and loot is awarded. Most content should be centered around group play after the learning newbie levels.
Looking at all the greats and what made them great this is exactly why. Players enjoy teamwork when they get to make a regular group of friends, aren't stressed to reach max level, are allowed and even encouraged to explore and adventure, and when they can get fancy duds that are a bit rare to show off and especially that very rare fancy dud.
EQ2 tried to bring some of this back with the TLE servers and had an amazing time at it. In the end though they still failed hardcore on bringing back difficulty as changes made throughout the games history simply didn't allow the first couple of expacs to have any real difficulty left. They failed also with shoving cash shop Vitality Potions down people's throats where leveling was super fast with them and without them it was so very slow you would be under-leveled of your group in a day if they used and you didn't. The choice of 5 levels a day or 1/2 a level a day just made a nightmare rush. Simply put they failed to really bring back that old nostalgia of an old mmorpg adventure/explore game. But still wherever you went there were people none the less.
Archeage's (and I'll argue, Wildstar as well) initial success may have proved that housing and crafting can draw in a crowd initally, but neither of those prove anything about difficulty or PvP.
If anything, Wildstar proved that while some people might WANT difficulty that relies on extreme interaction, they'll find it tastes terrible once they actually get it (I'm aware that Wildstar failed for many different reasons. However, quite a few people said that, even if you ignored the stupid attunement system and terrible itemization, the raids really were too friggin' hard and required too much interaction).
Archeage in regards to evidence of potential success for PvP meanwhile is a mixed bag, and that's being generous. For every person gushing about it back when it was new and hot, I saw several others saying they quit the game over it. I doubt most developers would rush to spend their time and money on a PvP MMO on such flimsy evidence, myself.
MMORPG players are probably the most anal-retentive group of gamers out there. I think any game development company which wants to create an MMORPG either hates themselves, or is completely insane. Most likely both.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
#IStandWithVic
If there is a bad themepark game nobody expect you to play it. For sandbox players the pickings are slim. But we're told to play them because thas all they are. Game usually creates by amateurs that are buggy messes like Mortal or Darkfall.
I don't even like MOBA's and I've been playing league for years because MMORPG's are so bad right now. In fact, i have a group of 10 or so friends who love MMO's but are all waiting for a decent one to come out. I have a feeling we are not alone.
Sandboxes have never had the appeal themeparks have had and add PvP and the disparity grows even more pronounced.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:
Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
"Yea, we got 200k subscribers when there was no competition!!!!! And now those new guys have twice that many after competition has come along!" That's not something to be proud of.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Sandbox has never been given a modern chance. The vast majority of MMORPG players are WoW players. The few games that have peaked over 500k all were WoW clones outside of Eve. Lot of those that did crashed and burned in a couple of months. Its not really a good comparison because WoW outshines all other MMORPG. But you're line of thinking has lead to the genre being over saturated with bad imitations instead of sandboxes and other types of MMORPG.
He even points to why players might leave OWPVP games : "every cribaby that cried a river cause a PK killed him is gone to League of Legends", but he believes games should have more potential for ganking - its totally contradictory.
He equates low populations in mmos with failure, but his example of an ideal mmo is Ultima Online with at its peak had only 250,000 players.
In fact I wonder if I have actually been trolled by the OP.....
If EQ had been the first MMO it wouldn't have had 600k subs, the market wasn't that developed yet. UO was the game that made the market. Yes it enjoyed less success than later games which launched into an increasingly developed market. Maybe you think WAR would have sold a million boxes if the market hadn't already been grown to such a degree by WoW?
Nothing you said makes any sense in reality, please just stop.
No game have 100% retention rate even if the game is great. You had queue because the studio is too cheap to make resource in the beginning.
MOBAs, FPS and sports games will ALWAYS dominate their less popular and far more nerdy and time consuming cousins; the MMORPGs and even the regular RPGs for that matter. They are genres based on instant gratification and action, that a slower paced game can't compare with when it comes to mass appeal.
Also... @Velocinox
Your signature quotes are full of win! They always amuse me. :P
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
It is however a two part mix,one just bad games but gamer's that make very poor judgement calls when jumping in on any new game.If these 500k-2million don't randomly jump in on every new game,they never worry about losing 500k-2million because the games are just not good enough.
When i buy a game or enter a commitment i stick to it for a long time.I make good judgement calls on quality of games,i don't just randomly wave my arms in the air screaming "amazing !! every time some new game gets hyped.I have had so much experience in games it is sickening,i can tell very quickly if a game is a rubbish sell job or if the developer actually put some quality effort into it.
I guess the other part is MANY people are way too easily excited,they see open pvp loot and they are all over that game like bees on honey.Doesn't matter the game is utter crap they just see what excites them and they are in.I believe there is a term for it spontaneous something.I don't see the trend stopping,maybe people just have a lot of money to waste,so all these crap games will keep making profits because tons are willing to throw their money away.
Somebody just posted the other day he has like 30 games on Steam that he has never played and i know the data research showed Steam has around a 30% total of games purchased and never played.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
For example PK , i get tired of all allow to PK MMORPG that the prey don't have tool to fight back . You have no tool to hunt down the player killer and there are no risk in PK .
Basically you can keep harassing people , trolling until they quit because they have no ways to fight back .
Look those developers chase they own tails make me Lol , while feel very ironic
Look at archeage sea PVP , the ganker wait people at port instead of go out the sea to find prey .
Or the fishing , it's fine for fishing boat allow you keep more fish , but the fishing radar total ruin the game
Or quest hub for solo player in PVP field .
I just don't want to say anymore , just remember those thing make me wonder ...
Yea the industry is larger, its full of lots and lots of garbage in every flavor you can imagine. Kinda funny that the most popular upcoming MMOS are all trying to bring back mechanics and ideas from games that predated WoW to revive the 'bigger than ever' MMO industry. I guess everyone doesn't feel the same as you, there seems to be quite a huge amount of money and support being thrown behind 'old' development ideas and developers. We'll see how the next batch of 'WoW-backlash' MMOs compare to the WARs and SWTORs that tried to emulate the WoW formula.
I would imagine developers, when making a decision in regards to including a PvP element or not, consider just how many more folks enjoy playing against (and not just with) other folks online.
There is definitely a discussion to be had regarding how the two types of gameplay interact. However, I think it a bit too general to claim that PvE is the reigning king of gameplay types for MMORPGs (when the genre is considered from the perspective of multiplayer games in general).
Source?
It's been given several chances, they all learn the same lesson; Players want FREEDOM! until someone else uses FREEDOM! to mess with the first player's FREEDOM!
This isn't about copying others, you're resorting to a straw man argument because you can't support your own assertions.
This is about sandboxes don't do as well as themeparks and PvP sandboxes do even worse. And even if we use your own sourceless and vaguely pulled-from-your-ass-smelling numbers, The first sandbox MMO with all the power of Star Wars couldn't pull in the numbers of it's Themepark cousin. Even though it sold twice as many boxes (1 million) the vast majority of those buyers logged in, saw there was no star wars and it was more a hairstyling simulator than a Star Wars adventure logged back out and never looked back.
It was a failure despite all the rose colored glasses remembering a perfect game in a perfect setting with perfect rules.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:
Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
There were games like Rift and especially Age of Conan and Warhammer online peaked above 500k but dropped way below in a few months. So how many western MMORPG are above 500k? STWOR, WoW, GW2, Eve (maybe) are the only ones I can think of. That's the reality of the genre. It's niche outside of handful of games and some games in Asia.
And no freedom hasn't been done in a MMORPG outside poor indie attempts and few early games that didn't have modern gameplay or interfaces. Closest thing is Archeage which you basically have to spend hundreds in RL money to compete in PVP.
WoW changed what success in this market was supposed to be. Problem is nobody has lived up to it. But it didn't stop emulation because why invest in a market with 500k potential if that vs. going for 13 million with a themepark imitation. But the vast majority of those games are still under 500k not subs but active F2P users.
There was no YouTube, no Twitter, no iTunes, the internet was a completely different entity.
Comparing the number of people playing MMOs from those years to now is beyond shortsighted and foolish to put it extremely politely.
So enough with these dumb ass irrelevant numbers you're throwing on the table. You're not even remotely close to proving your point.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Saying it's irrelevant is a bit of a stretch. Let's not forget that WoW ran right alongside these titles, so saying that it's irrelevant because 10% of the world had the Internet at that point is, in itself, irrelevant. WoW had 3-5 times the number of people of SWG or UO within months of launch. If ANYTHING we could make the assumption that those who wanted to play these games got the Internet, based on the fact that WoWs numbers have not scaled linearly with that of the Internet.
To say that what "the people" want is an SWG or UO is, actually, completely unfounded and foolish itself. There have been ZERO metrics which show that an open world with that sort of freedom is what people are looking for. It very well could be what you want, but there aren't any large-scale examples that would support it. So while I can appreciate that there was no YouTube or Twitter or iTunes back then, but NGE was pure evidence that the market was smaller than expected and that there were bigger markets out there.
By all means, if you've got some game that I'm not aware of (please don't say Minecraft) that's a sandbox and has mass appeal, fire away. However, to say that sandbox has the same mass appeal as a themepark is ridiculous.
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
----------------
Well, Wow survived, SWG died. I'm not sure what more to say.
Do you know what's the most popular mmorpg in korea for the last 18 years? Lineage.
Simply because it would be a great opportunity to sell products without any competition, which is almost like a miracle in today's oversaturated market.