I don't quite understand it myself, there is a fairly large niche of players who want a skill oriented sandbox style game. Yet, all the major titles in this department are from small developers. I mean this formula is tried and tested, some of the first 2 mmos , Asherons Call and Ultima Online were both classless and pretty sandboxy, also both are still alive, and maybe even kicking. Why won't any of the bigger name MMO developers take on this challenge, instead of leaving our hopes in the hands of games such as Mortal Online and Darkfall?(Not saying there is anything wrong with those games).
Because there is no such large niche of players. UO never reached the popularly of even EQ, and would be considered niche today.
Most people like more directed content. Just look at the popularity of WOW & Aion.
Sadly this is true. A lot more people like to watch sports than play them too.
Have to disagree here. It isn't true in that at the time UO launched MMO gaming was the select province of the pencil and paper gaming nerd herd, of which I was a card carrying member. There just weren't that many people turned on to MMO gaming at that time. WoW brought a ton of RTS gaming folks into the MMO genre. ***severe opinion incoming*** Most of the RTS crowd like quick gameplay that isn't too involved and one in which they can "win". "Winning" and/or end-game wasn't an idea associated with MMOs prior to this.***
The only thing I could say is "true" about this is that we haven't to date had a major, AAA studio put forth a solid sandbox effort. We've had one attempt and then abort one (SOE with SWG) however it should be noted that they never really tried to make it succeed and instead worried about ways to change totally what they had from day 1. We've also had a few attempts by indy or minor studios, some of which turned out pretty darn decent (EvE).
But yeah, it would be very nice to see a sandbox game with the backing (money) of a major studio would look like. One that actually had a team working to improve it as it grew as opposed trying to dismantle it. Wouldn't hurt considering the sea of AAA themeparks out there to throw an AAA island in here and there.
You sound very bitter towards wow and it's success and sound like you are pulling out all the old copout statments like bringing in the rts crowd. Blizzard made a quality product. UO's success was due to having almost zero competition and was losing subs before EQ came and took even more of them. Sandbox games are like the alternative music scene in that those who hate the main stream have to have a place to call their own.
He's not saying anything bad about WoW, so I'm not sure where you are getting the very bitter feeling from. WoW DID draw in a lot of RTS players, because fans of the previously RTS franchise came in to WoW to check it out. Many of them were hooked. RTS is a more traditional game genre that has a clear goal, and a clear end. It would be logical for RTS gamers to expect the same thing in their first MMO, especially when it comes from an RTS franchise. Like it or not, WoW's franchise rep contributed to its success. It isn't the primary reason for its success, but it brought in a lot of people that would not have otherwise tried MMOs at all. That's where WoW's gameplay comes in -- it hooks those that the franchise name attracted. It's a pretty objective idea. I think he has a valid point.
edited for clarity.
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]" (Wikipedia.org, 8-24-09)
2) less controllable experience, higher risk of failure
3) Lower potentional player base
> Steeper learning curve (skill-based systems usually require some effort to wrap ones head around)
> Likely not 'casual' thus turning off a large fraction of todays MMO gamers
> less 'rewarding' game play, no 'feel-good' triggers (level-up, phat lootz)
> Many people do not play games to grow crops and milk a cow (i,e, they want to be a hero).
> ...
4) Balancing nightmare (looking at CO and it's classless system here, for example - or SWG pre CU for that matter).
5) You spend a lot of time coming up with skills and try to balance them and in the end players will still find the best combo making all your effort look pointless... (i.e. they make their own 'classes')
It's mostly the high development costs paired with the high risk of failure due to a number of non-controllable aspects of the game (balancing, for one). The more money you put in, the more you need to take control of what is going to happen with it. Also, MMos have become an entertainment product which people consume to be entertained - and that is, for the majority, more easily achieved through themepark games. People don't usually want to work to be able to get into a game - tho apparently they don't mind doing it later when all that is left is to grind gear ^^ Along those lines, I think the reason why it worked for EvE is because the development costs where quite managable. It's programmed in Python and while quite pretty is technically not the same level of complexity as a completely outfitted fantasy world.
See, there I have to disagree. With a class-based system you can control whch abilities are combined. But with a skill-based system it is not possible to predict what kind of combinations players will come up with. How are you going to balance something like that. A skill may be overpowered in a certain combination, but would be totally fine in another combination. It's not going to work if people are in a competetive situation. The sheer amount of time it would take to get a handle on that is already problematic.
People are always referring to SWG in this context but that system was fkn broken beyond belief. Everyone was a def-stacking teras kasi-doc in full composite armor buffed up to their eyebrows. It was just lame...
SOoooo to sum up the direction of marketing pressures on the large game companies, the ideal game to make, is still hand holding, to make it appealing on mass, and people need to have e-peen bragging items, to stand around for days on end showing off and talking crap...So the next big game that will blow WoW away is in fact an expansion pack for the SIMs where everyone gets armed up and goblins attack the shopping mall..SIMS 27 part-b SiMs go mental.
Just to make it clear why i think that, allot of players want housing, many ways to chat and cool items to so off, ergo the SIMs
champions is level based and also not sandbox, i mentioned major developers. TBH I would play EVE except I don't care for spaceships ( a valid complaint) and feel that everyone already has too much of a headstart. (totally incorrect)
Don't shortchange yourself an excellent sandbox experience over your second concern, its just not true.
The market has shown it prefers games with classes and levels, (draws the most subs) so thats what the big houses are going to make.
The market has yet to prefer that considering that there is no well-funded game that anyone has heard of that is sandbox, except EVE which is still very popular. I would have never heard of DFO had I not come to this site. I have played WoW, however, for 2 years before visiting here once. The point being that unless there is a game that receives the kind of pre-release hype and funding of an EA or Activision game, your argument is useless.
my guess is that it has to do with investors. Seems sandbox mmos are more of a risk and with the high cost of development a lot of times it probably just seems easier to go with what they know people already want. I really would like to see more sand box mmos though in addition to more themeparked types. More good games period Sometimes I just really want to be able to create something myself in a game or decide something new that would be fun. Most of the games I've played don't really allow that at all. Just throw me some tools, give me an area to work in and I'll have a blast! I used to love playing the console games that had map editors. Heck, I spent more time designing my own custom multiplayer maps in Timesplitters than I did actually playing lol.
Have you tried Ryzom? They have a system like that in place, where you can make your own content.
-------- "Chemistry: 'We do stuff in lab that would be a felony in your garage.'"
The most awesomest after school special T-shirt: Front: UNO Chemistry Club Back: /\OH --> Bad Decisions
1) higher development costs > technically very complex 4) Balancing nightmare (looking at CO and it's classless system here, for example - or SWG pre CU for that matter). 5) You spend a lot of time coming up with skills and try to balance them and in the end players will still find the best combo making all your effort look pointless... (i.e. they make their own 'classes')
Well sandbox MMORPGs don't necessarily cost more than a normal MMORPG. Or are you just pointing out that because MMORPGs cost more than normal games people are less apt to take a risk?
As for balance? Classless can be balanced.
Skills-based advancement is merely a different way of organizing the abilities you give to players. You still have to design it intelligently to avoid giving one playstyle too many abilities, or combinations of abilities which are dominant (ie which outweigh the other alternatives.)
So yes, a skills-based advancement system without any limitations will be terrible for gameplay (because everyone will be the same, and player choice won't really matter.) But if you do it right, classless can be balanced.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Pretty much every game developer wants to take a piece of WoW's pie. So they try and make games that appeal to that crowd. The thing is the people don't want another game like WoW they just want WoW. Sandbox will always be niche now because of WoW being a "Theme Park" game and now that it brought in a ton of players to the MMORPG genre. A lot of new people have joined because of WoW and even MMO veterans like my self have either played it or are still playing it. The thing is WoW i guess is now the standard of which MMO's will be judged which sucks IMHO. Thats like comparing every punk band to Blink182 and Greenday. Of course some bands will not be polished and stuff but it doesn't mean that their music isn't as good as them.
I for one am glad WoW has all those numbers, It keeps the jerk offs out of the games I play, but even if WoW didn't make it most people won't play the games I play anyways. But devs need to wake up and smell the coffee, don't worry about WoW forget it was even made because its a damn freak of nature. Just think about the pre WoW era and shoot for those kinds of subs because every other game besides WoW basically has those amount of subs.
People are always referring to SWG in this context but that system was fkn broken beyond belief. Everyone was a def-stacking teras kasi-doc in full composite armor buffed up to their eyebrows. It was just lame...
while true, the min maxers always stuck with Teras Kasi, and yes the system in SWG was in serious need of love(pikeman being useless..... pretty much there entire life) it wasn't because of the system, it was SOE not focusing on key problems. easy to balance Teras Kasi, can't wear armor... the fact that they let a martial artist fight in full composite, was incredibly stupid, let alone the stat stacking. SWGs system could have been fixed, if SOE just dealt with actual problems, instead of jerking us around with random nerfs, ignoring un-popular classes(pikeman), and preparing to stab all of us in the back for the fun of it.
a capped skill system, is still my favorite way to play, and sadly, there aren't really any out there, aside Ryzom, though, i can't remember if Ryzom is capped? anyone? or is it just like Darkfalls skill system..... without the suck?
Because games like WOW have sapped just about all creativity and independent thought away from much of the current MMO community.
There are alot of MMO gamers that only know WoW (or one of the clones) and can't be bothered to create their own content in a sandbox.
I mean we have gotten to the point now were we have to stick people in an instanced PvP Scenario with plainly marked out objectives.....AND the players still can't get it right on what to do. Its like they need a carrot dangling over their head throughout the entire process to have a clue on what to do next.
I think thats why many game devs are shy on bank rolling sandbox MMOs.
Don't get me wrong....I'm an old UO vet and have been in search of UO's replacement over 5 years now....I just feel that many of today's MMO playerbase has become too dependent on the game itself to tell them what they need to be doing next to apprecaite an environment where players generate the content.
The reason why is simple. Pretty much every game developer wants to take a piece of WoW's pie. So they try and make games that appeal to that crowd. The thing is the people don't want another game like WoW they just want WoW. Sandbox will always be niche now because of WoW being a "Theme Park" game and now that it brought in a ton of players to the MMORPG genre. A lot of new people have joined because of WoW and even MMO veterans like my self have either played it or are still playing it. The thing is WoW i guess is now the standard of which MMO's will be judged which sucks IMHO. Thats like comparing every punk band to Blink182 and Greenday. Of course some bands will not be polished and stuff but it doesn't mean that their music isn't as good as them. I for one am glad WoW has all those numbers, It keeps the jerk offs out of the games I play, but even if WoW didn't make it most people won't play the games I play anyways. But devs need to wake up and smell the coffee, don't worry about WoW forget it was even made because its a damn freak of nature. Just think about the pre WoW era and shoot for those kinds of subs because every other game besides WoW basically has those amount of subs.
I don't think every game developer wants to make a game like WoW, I think every big company wants to make a game like WoW (for the money). If a game developer were to want to make a game like WoW, its most likely because their game design requires them to use a Theme Park model and they would like to improve upon the mold or/and that they have so used to seeing/playing WoW and games like WoW that they are trapped in the mold. WoW is the standard and if one is to make a successful game (using a similar mold) then its best you would take notes of the "most successful" game out there.
I do think its about time though to stop measuring success based on subscriptions and to start dissecting the market into separate niches rather than lump MMORPG players into 1 general crowd when there are so many different tastes and flavors people expect from MMORPG's these days. A smart company will acknowledge this, get past the fact that their MMORPG is more likely going to make more money than their "single player" games because not only do they get away from charging people to buy the software but (as of now at least) they can get away with charging people for playing the game too, but they shouldn't expect to match WoW when they came in during totally different times.
They are greedy bastards and want to make millions like WoW.
So they wont go out of there way for a few thousand subs, they want a million subs.
I hope one day a big company will fund this, but its a dream at this point.
Pull your head out of the sand(box) These games cost millions to create and that money has to be recouped in a pretty short time frame. There isn't enough of a market for these games, to allow that to happen. If you haven't noticed games are entertainment and only exist to make money. Your best hope still lies in the small development shops that are willing to take big risks.
Originally posted by Jairoe03 I don't think every game developer wants to make a game like WoW, I think every big company wants to make a game like WoW (for the money). If a game developer were to want to make a game like WoW, its most likely because their game design requires them to use a Theme Park model and they would like to improve upon the mold or/and that they have so used to seeing/playing WoW and games like WoW that they are trapped in the mold. WoW is the standard and if one is to make a successful game (using a similar mold) then its best you would take notes of the "most successful" game out there. I do think its about time though to stop measuring success based on subscriptions and to start dissecting the market into separate niches rather than lump MMORPG players into 1 general crowd when there are so many different tastes and flavors people expect from MMORPG's these days. A smart company will acknowledge this, get past the fact that their MMORPG is more likely going to make more money than their "single player" games because not only do they get away from charging people to buy the software but (as of now at least) they can get away with charging people for playing the game too, but they shouldn't expect to match WoW when they came in during totally different times.
Success can be measuer only in subscriber numbers. You make the game to be played, aren't you?
While there are many tastes and flavours, the hunger is for 1 flavour only. Smart company will acknowledge this and go where the greatest hunger is. And this si what is happening now.
Pull your head out of the sand(box) These games cost millions to create and that money has to be recouped in a pretty short time frame. There isn't enough of a market for these games, to allow that to happen. If you haven't noticed games are entertainment and only exist to make money. Your best hope still lies in the small development shops that are willing to take big risks.
I disagree with money that HAS to be recouped in a short time frame. That's only what an investor wants so they can stick their greedy hands in another venture and hopefully turn more profit. An investor can just as easily (if not so driven by money) to bide his time and wait patiently, but I highly doubt that half of them know what exactly they are doing with their money when they stick it into an MMORPG. All they see is games like WoW and their success and dollar signs and they want it and they want it now. I agree that the tried and proven tactics are the lesser risks and the untried ones are the bigger ones that investors are sadly not going to take again because they don't care about the product just the end result.
I don't think every game developer wants to make a game like WoW, I think every big company wants to make a game like WoW (for the money). If a game developer were to want to make a game like WoW, its most likely because their game design requires them to use a Theme Park model and they would like to improve upon the mold or/and that they have so used to seeing/playing WoW and games like WoW that they are trapped in the mold. WoW is the standard and if one is to make a successful game (using a similar mold) then its best you would take notes of the "most successful" game out there.
I do think its about time though to stop measuring success based on subscriptions and to start dissecting the market into separate niches rather than lump MMORPG players into 1 general crowd when there are so many different tastes and flavors people expect from MMORPG's these days. A smart company will acknowledge this, get past the fact that their MMORPG is more likely going to make more money than their "single player" games because not only do they get away from charging people to buy the software but (as of now at least) they can get away with charging people for playing the game too, but they shouldn't expect to match WoW when they came in during totally different times.
Success can be measuer only in subscriber numbers. You make the game to be played, aren't you?
While there are many tastes and flavours, the hunger is for 1 flavour only. Smart company will acknowledge this and go where the greatest hunger is. And this si what is happening now.
Everything works as intended
I disagree, I like ice cream but I'm not just going to eat any flavor when I walk into an ice cream shop. It doesn't mean I like every flavor either. Sure success can be measured only in subscriber number and let me correct my flaw. It shouldn't be measured in comparison to another company's subscriber numbers especially when they entered at a time where there were very few quality MMO's to play. Obviously there isn't just hunger for 1 flavor of MMO as you can see some prefer and want Sci-Fi, others prefer Fantasy, some prefer more story driven, others just want to hang out with friends. There are different goals to be had in an MMORPG rather than just 1 goal (as opposed to most non-MMORPG games).
Yes, the game has to sell, and an MMO most importantly needs people, but how much do you need to have a "successful" MMO. I do NOT think they have to be on par with the highest seller to be considered successful. I don't think you even need a million. Whats the defining characteristic that seperates successful from unsuccessful? I think too many try and use the 10+ million mark that WoW has set which is far too high. How is EVE considered successful with over 300k (not even 1 million)? I disagree with you on many points there except the 1st which pointed out a flaw that I hopefully cleared up.
If SOE hadn't have pulled the NGE on us it might still hae upwards of 300+k players playing it. That is not that bad considering most P2P games seem to cap out at around 150k players. If they had gone in and fixed what was broken and just kept adding content SWG could have seen a lot more players by now. Instead they decided to make it more "iconic" and now it is only a shallow pool of a game it once was.
Originally posted by Jairoe03 Same goes for a game, I like to have many different things to do, but I'm not necessarily going to do it all at once on the same day, week or even month. One day I'm going to feel like experiencing something totally different and its great to have different options to choose from outside of the regular combat and crafting (which is pretty shallow in most games). Why not a political system where I climb up the ranks through being voted for particular positions or in depth mining (like in EVE Online) or anything else outside of combat. I would love to have 24 varieties of different things to do within a game, that would be awesome. And I want to believe I'm not alone with this sentiment either. (If I am, then maybe I'm wrong )
Well the Bioware Quote and my Jam Research are merely the psychology of the average person. If you want to create a game which is more fun to more people, you naturally want to understand the psychology of your audience.
Neither the Quote or my use of the Research says sandbox games can't exist. They simply describe sandbox games as a minority thing.
To be honest, aside from the fact that this Choice Overload research is awesome info for anyone interested in game design, I'm not sure it directly applies to a sandbox vs. themepark debate. I can cite many reasons Themeparks are more successful/fun games than Sandbox, but "Sandboxes give you too much choice" isn't one of them.
I'm all for variety and think eventually someone will make a full sandbox game. I won't play it because "sandboxes give you too much choice". I don't want to be handheld, but I don't want to wander around aimlessly either.
As for the research, I think there is probably ALOT of research into "too much choice". I doubt any of it applies to games though. I have played Oblivion and Morrowwind and think they offer too many choices although most people in this post will hold those up as the gold standard of sandboxes. (Oblivion i dislike the scaling level mobs mostly). People don't want to make the "wrong" choice. With single player games you can usually load an old saved game and change your decision. In an MMO, you'll have to reroll or agonize over spoiler sites first.
I disagree, I like ice cream but I'm not just going to eat any flavor when I walk into an ice cream shop. It doesn't mean I like every flavor either. Sure success can be measured only in subscriber number and let me correct my flaw. It shouldn't be measured in comparison to another company's subscriber numbers especially when they entered at a time where there were very few quality MMO's to play. Obviously there isn't just hunger for 1 flavor of MMO as you can see some prefer and want Sci-Fi, others prefer Fantasy, some prefer more story driven, others just want to hang out with friends. There are different goals to be had in an MMORPG rather than just 1 goal (as opposed to most non-MMORPG games). Yes, the game has to sell, and an MMO most importantly needs people, but how much do you need to have a "successful" MMO. I do NOT think they have to be on par with the highest seller to be considered successful. I don't think you even need a million. Whats the defining characteristic that seperates successful from unsuccessful? I think too many try and use the 10+ million mark that WoW has set which is far too high. How is EVE considered successful with over 300k (not even 1 million)? I disagree with you on many points there except the 1st which pointed out a flaw that I hopefully cleared up.
I agree with the ice cream analogy, while there needs to be more than 1 flavor, you want to make a profit selling the lesser flavors too. WoW is rumored to cost $60M to develop. That means they expected to get more than 1 million box sales (monthly costs go to future development and maintenance). If a AAA company were to make a large investment in an sandbox MMO they would need a forcast of sales in that range within a reasonable period of time. Eve can exist on much smaller numbers because it started small and grew.
I disagree, I like ice cream but I'm not just going to eat any flavor when I walk into an ice cream shop. It doesn't mean I like every flavor either.
Stretching the analogy is pointeless since you will end up with the same result. Do the customers want most to watch TV, washing the dishes or enjoying the meal? They enjoy the meal. Do the customers want most the fruits, ice cream or pasta? They enjoy the ice cream. Do the ... etc.
You will end up with ice cream flavour.
Originally posted by Jairoe03Sure success can be measured only in subscriber number and let me correct my flaw. It shouldn't be measured in comparison to another company's subscriber numbers especially when they entered at a time where there were very few quality MMO's to play. Obviously there isn't just hunger for 1 flavor of MMO as you can see some prefer and want Sci-Fi, others prefer Fantasy, some prefer more story driven, others just want to hang out with friends. There are different goals to be had in an MMORPG rather than just 1 goal (as opposed to most non-MMORPG games). Yes, the game has to sell, and an MMO most importantly needs people, but how much do you need to have a "successful" MMO. I do NOT think they have to be on par with the highest seller to be considered successful. I don't think you even need a million. Whats the defining characteristic that seperates successful from unsuccessful? I think too many try and use the 10+ million mark that WoW has set which is far too high. How is EVE considered successful with over 300k (not even 1 million)? I disagree with you on many points there except the 1st which pointed out a flaw that I hopefully cleared up.
I think you got wrong impression that I think game needs WoW subs to be successful. I just pointed out on subs as income. Any project that can earn money can be called success. More it earns, the better. It's that simple. Why would I try to penetrate some minor market and risk my money when I can dig right next to Blizzard?
The truth is, non mainstream games have only little audience. Look at EVE. Very complex, sandbox, PVP based game with 300k subscribers! The 'sad part' is that most of those subs are carebears(or alts) never leaving high sec nor getting involved in any PVP or deeper game mechanics ever.
While I understand what you are trying to say, I would say it is more wishes than reasonable business POV. When the market gets saturated, the time for change will come. No worries.
EDIT: It's funny because I used to run ice cream shop for some time
Stretching the analogy is pointeless since you will end up with the same result.
Do the customers want most to watch TV, washing the dishes or enjoying the meal?
They enjoy the meal.
Do the customers want most the fruits, ice cream or pasta?
They enjoy the ice cream.
Do the ...
etc.
You will end up with ice cream flavour.
Well see, this is less direct of an analogy than my ice cream flavors. I stuck to 1 general thing and was just pointing out that even though the concept amongst all flavors are the same, its all ice cream, the flavors do matter to the subscribers. What you did help me point out is the difficulty with MMORPG's. There's many things to do in an MMORPG like real life and who's to say they will actually enjoy that meal over watching TV. There lies the issue with MMORPG's, the MMORPG people all desire doing different things however, current MMORPG's are only offering 1 flavor. There's also different ways to go about PvE, PvP, crafting etc. and little flavors within those areas. I'm sure when ice cream came out, it only came out with one flavor but it didn't stop other people from desiring other flavors and that didn't stop companies from releasing flavors to fulfill a niche within the ice cream market. In this context, I don't feel my analogy stretched at all, just placed within a different context for ease of argument and pointing out what I'm trying to get at.
I think you got wrong impression that I think game needs WoW subs to be successful. I just pointed out on subs as income.
Any project that can earn money can be called success. More it earns, the better. It's that simple.
Why would I try to penetrate some minor market and risk my money when I can dig right next to Blizzard?
Oh I didn't get the wrong impression or mean to imply that you were, I was just trying to extend it to the rest of the thread, not just a specific reply to you since some will try and gauge a game's success in comparing subs to WoW (and some companies might try to expect it upon designing and releasing their games in direct competition to WoW) and just believe this MIGHT be a misconception that companies should ditch. Why not dig next to Blizzard but focus on a niche within Blizzard's market? Wouldn't this make it easier to grab an immediate audience while keeping that crowd to your game if Blizzard is taking a less focused approach?
The truth is, non mainstream games have only little audience. Look at EVE. Very complex, sandbox, PVP based game with 300k subscribers! The 'sad part' is that most of those subs are carebears(or alts) never leaving high sec nor getting involved in any PVP or deeper game mechanics ever.
There's always a sad part to anything =( I haven't experienced enough of EVE to say anything more, aside from there are trade PvP does exist within the high sec and is a very deep game mechanic that I at least have tried to explore. Even if people don't explore the PvP side of the combat track, there are other tracks in there to consider (again, I cannot say anything more).This is also what makes EVE successful without requiring a large amount of players. The size of the audience should not matter in regards to success, its again, whether the investors make their profit and whether their game is fun to the audience they target. I think more companies should start considering this, it would cost less and be easier to turn a profit from rather than try to imitate what Blizzard accomplished (which is near-impossible today, I don't want to have to eat my words by just using impossible )
While I understand what you are trying to say, I would say it is more wishes than reasonable business POV.
When the market gets saturated, the time for change will come. No worries.
Yes its wishes for the time being. I think the market has grown enough where now companies can consider a more focused effort in terms of their games without worrying about whether or not there are people that will take them up on their opportunities. Yes, costs and rewards are important but I don't think a company should feel the need to dump the same amounts of resources as Blizzard has to make a quality game and they shouldn't expect (yet alone shoot for) the same results either. Those were different times when WoW came into being.
EDIT:
It's funny because I have run ice cream shop for some time
the not enough customers is a load of crap. SWG, a horribly bugged, completely unfinished game managed to get 300k subscribers half a decade ago.
A well made sandbox game could easily do a million plus. However this will never happen since the investors want to keep remaking wow in another IP hoping to get 10+ million
I think they just don't know how to market it so they can't sell the idea to the investors. Selling people an experience the make for themselves is a difficult concept to get their heads around to the large corp mindset.
Originally posted by Silvermink As for the research, I think there is probably ALOT of research into "too much choice". I doubt any of it applies to games though.
Well games are all about choices, so research about the underlying psychology of how people make choices is useful.
I mean you can stumble onto success in games, or you can create a game with knowledge of the actual, scientific, psychological factors that cause a game to be fun. The latter method is wiser.
But yeah, a decision in the game is just like a decision anywhere else in your life. And if that decision has been created by the game designer in a way that optimally appeals to your aesthetic sense, psychology, etc, then you're going to get more fun out of the game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
Because there is no such large niche of players. UO never reached the popularly of even EQ, and would be considered niche today.
Most people like more directed content. Just look at the popularity of WOW & Aion.
Sadly this is true. A lot more people like to watch sports than play them too.
Have to disagree here. It isn't true in that at the time UO launched MMO gaming was the select province of the pencil and paper gaming nerd herd, of which I was a card carrying member. There just weren't that many people turned on to MMO gaming at that time. WoW brought a ton of RTS gaming folks into the MMO genre. ***severe opinion incoming*** Most of the RTS crowd like quick gameplay that isn't too involved and one in which they can "win". "Winning" and/or end-game wasn't an idea associated with MMOs prior to this.***
The only thing I could say is "true" about this is that we haven't to date had a major, AAA studio put forth a solid sandbox effort. We've had one attempt and then abort one (SOE with SWG) however it should be noted that they never really tried to make it succeed and instead worried about ways to change totally what they had from day 1. We've also had a few attempts by indy or minor studios, some of which turned out pretty darn decent (EvE).
But yeah, it would be very nice to see a sandbox game with the backing (money) of a major studio would look like. One that actually had a team working to improve it as it grew as opposed trying to dismantle it. Wouldn't hurt considering the sea of AAA themeparks out there to throw an AAA island in here and there.
You sound very bitter towards wow and it's success and sound like you are pulling out all the old copout statments like bringing in the rts crowd. Blizzard made a quality product. UO's success was due to having almost zero competition and was losing subs before EQ came and took even more of them. Sandbox games are like the alternative music scene in that those who hate the main stream have to have a place to call their own.
He's not saying anything bad about WoW, so I'm not sure where you are getting the very bitter feeling from. WoW DID draw in a lot of RTS players, because fans of the previously RTS franchise came in to WoW to check it out. Many of them were hooked. RTS is a more traditional game genre that has a clear goal, and a clear end. It would be logical for RTS gamers to expect the same thing in their first MMO, especially when it comes from an RTS franchise. Like it or not, WoW's franchise rep contributed to its success. It isn't the primary reason for its success, but it brought in a lot of people that would not have otherwise tried MMOs at all. That's where WoW's gameplay comes in -- it hooks those that the franchise name attracted. It's a pretty objective idea. I think he has a valid point.
edited for clarity.
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]" (Wikipedia.org, 8-24-09)
The best way to deal with trolls:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/ [IGNORE THEM, THEY JUST WANT ATTENTION!]
1) higher development costs
> technically very complex
2) less controllable experience, higher risk of failure
3) Lower potentional player base
> Steeper learning curve (skill-based systems usually require some effort to wrap ones head around)
> Likely not 'casual' thus turning off a large fraction of todays MMO gamers
> less 'rewarding' game play, no 'feel-good' triggers (level-up, phat lootz)
> Many people do not play games to grow crops and milk a cow (i,e, they want to be a hero).
> ...
4) Balancing nightmare (looking at CO and it's classless system here, for example - or SWG pre CU for that matter).
5) You spend a lot of time coming up with skills and try to balance them and in the end players will still find the best combo making all your effort look pointless... (i.e. they make their own 'classes')
It's mostly the high development costs paired with the high risk of failure due to a number of non-controllable aspects of the game (balancing, for one). The more money you put in, the more you need to take control of what is going to happen with it. Also, MMos have become an entertainment product which people consume to be entertained - and that is, for the majority, more easily achieved through themepark games. People don't usually want to work to be able to get into a game - tho apparently they don't mind doing it later when all that is left is to grind gear ^^ Along those lines, I think the reason why it worked for EvE is because the development costs where quite managable. It's programmed in Python and while quite pretty is technically not the same level of complexity as a completely outfitted fantasy world.
the best way to test balancing is to have a long open beta because players will find the imbalances
See, there I have to disagree. With a class-based system you can control whch abilities are combined. But with a skill-based system it is not possible to predict what kind of combinations players will come up with. How are you going to balance something like that. A skill may be overpowered in a certain combination, but would be totally fine in another combination. It's not going to work if people are in a competetive situation. The sheer amount of time it would take to get a handle on that is already problematic.
People are always referring to SWG in this context but that system was fkn broken beyond belief. Everyone was a def-stacking teras kasi-doc in full composite armor buffed up to their eyebrows. It was just lame...
SOoooo to sum up the direction of marketing pressures on the large game companies, the ideal game to make, is still hand holding, to make it appealing on mass, and people need to have e-peen bragging items, to stand around for days on end showing off and talking crap...So the next big game that will blow WoW away is in fact an expansion pack for the SIMs where everyone gets armed up and goblins attack the shopping mall..SIMS 27 part-b SiMs go mental.
Just to make it clear why i think that, allot of players want housing, many ways to chat and cool items to so off, ergo the SIMs
champions is level based and also not sandbox, i mentioned major developers. TBH I would play EVE except I don't care for spaceships ( a valid complaint) and feel that everyone already has too much of a headstart. (totally incorrect)
Don't shortchange yourself an excellent sandbox experience over your second concern, its just not true.
The market has shown it prefers games with classes and levels, (draws the most subs) so thats what the big houses are going to make.
The market has yet to prefer that considering that there is no well-funded game that anyone has heard of that is sandbox, except EVE which is still very popular. I would have never heard of DFO had I not come to this site. I have played WoW, however, for 2 years before visiting here once. The point being that unless there is a game that receives the kind of pre-release hype and funding of an EA or Activision game, your argument is useless.
Have you tried Ryzom? They have a system like that in place, where you can make your own content.
--------
"Chemistry: 'We do stuff in lab that would be a felony in your garage.'"
The most awesomest after school special T-shirt:
Front: UNO Chemistry Club
Back: /\OH --> Bad Decisions
Well sandbox MMORPGs don't necessarily cost more than a normal MMORPG. Or are you just pointing out that because MMORPGs cost more than normal games people are less apt to take a risk?
As for balance? Classless can be balanced.
Skills-based advancement is merely a different way of organizing the abilities you give to players. You still have to design it intelligently to avoid giving one playstyle too many abilities, or combinations of abilities which are dominant (ie which outweigh the other alternatives.)
So yes, a skills-based advancement system without any limitations will be terrible for gameplay (because everyone will be the same, and player choice won't really matter.) But if you do it right, classless can be balanced.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The reason why is simple.
Pretty much every game developer wants to take a piece of WoW's pie. So they try and make games that appeal to that crowd. The thing is the people don't want another game like WoW they just want WoW. Sandbox will always be niche now because of WoW being a "Theme Park" game and now that it brought in a ton of players to the MMORPG genre. A lot of new people have joined because of WoW and even MMO veterans like my self have either played it or are still playing it. The thing is WoW i guess is now the standard of which MMO's will be judged which sucks IMHO. Thats like comparing every punk band to Blink182 and Greenday. Of course some bands will not be polished and stuff but it doesn't mean that their music isn't as good as them.
I for one am glad WoW has all those numbers, It keeps the jerk offs out of the games I play, but even if WoW didn't make it most people won't play the games I play anyways. But devs need to wake up and smell the coffee, don't worry about WoW forget it was even made because its a damn freak of nature. Just think about the pre WoW era and shoot for those kinds of subs because every other game besides WoW basically has those amount of subs.
while true, the min maxers always stuck with Teras Kasi, and yes the system in SWG was in serious need of love(pikeman being useless..... pretty much there entire life) it wasn't because of the system, it was SOE not focusing on key problems. easy to balance Teras Kasi, can't wear armor... the fact that they let a martial artist fight in full composite, was incredibly stupid, let alone the stat stacking. SWGs system could have been fixed, if SOE just dealt with actual problems, instead of jerking us around with random nerfs, ignoring un-popular classes(pikeman), and preparing to stab all of us in the back for the fun of it.
a capped skill system, is still my favorite way to play, and sadly, there aren't really any out there, aside Ryzom, though, i can't remember if Ryzom is capped? anyone? or is it just like Darkfalls skill system..... without the suck?
Because games like WOW have sapped just about all creativity and independent thought away from much of the current MMO community.
There are alot of MMO gamers that only know WoW (or one of the clones) and can't be bothered to create their own content in a sandbox.
I mean we have gotten to the point now were we have to stick people in an instanced PvP Scenario with plainly marked out objectives.....AND the players still can't get it right on what to do. Its like they need a carrot dangling over their head throughout the entire process to have a clue on what to do next.
I think thats why many game devs are shy on bank rolling sandbox MMOs.
Don't get me wrong....I'm an old UO vet and have been in search of UO's replacement over 5 years now....I just feel that many of today's MMO playerbase has become too dependent on the game itself to tell them what they need to be doing next to apprecaite an environment where players generate the content.
To put it simply, they probably wouldn't sale.
Groovy.
I don't think every game developer wants to make a game like WoW, I think every big company wants to make a game like WoW (for the money). If a game developer were to want to make a game like WoW, its most likely because their game design requires them to use a Theme Park model and they would like to improve upon the mold or/and that they have so used to seeing/playing WoW and games like WoW that they are trapped in the mold. WoW is the standard and if one is to make a successful game (using a similar mold) then its best you would take notes of the "most successful" game out there.
I do think its about time though to stop measuring success based on subscriptions and to start dissecting the market into separate niches rather than lump MMORPG players into 1 general crowd when there are so many different tastes and flavors people expect from MMORPG's these days. A smart company will acknowledge this, get past the fact that their MMORPG is more likely going to make more money than their "single player" games because not only do they get away from charging people to buy the software but (as of now at least) they can get away with charging people for playing the game too, but they shouldn't expect to match WoW when they came in during totally different times.
Always the same answer,
They are greedy bastards and want to make millions like WoW.
So they wont go out of there way for a few thousand subs, they want a million subs.
I hope one day a big company will fund this, but its a dream at this point.
Pull your head out of the sand(box) These games cost millions to create and that money has to be recouped in a pretty short time frame. There isn't enough of a market for these games, to allow that to happen. If you haven't noticed games are entertainment and only exist to make money. Your best hope still lies in the small development shops that are willing to take big risks.
While there are many tastes and flavours, the hunger is for 1 flavour only. Smart company will acknowledge this and go where the greatest hunger is. And this si what is happening now.
Everything works as intended
I disagree with money that HAS to be recouped in a short time frame. That's only what an investor wants so they can stick their greedy hands in another venture and hopefully turn more profit. An investor can just as easily (if not so driven by money) to bide his time and wait patiently, but I highly doubt that half of them know what exactly they are doing with their money when they stick it into an MMORPG. All they see is games like WoW and their success and dollar signs and they want it and they want it now. I agree that the tried and proven tactics are the lesser risks and the untried ones are the bigger ones that investors are sadly not going to take again because they don't care about the product just the end result.
While there are many tastes and flavours, the hunger is for 1 flavour only. Smart company will acknowledge this and go where the greatest hunger is. And this si what is happening now.
Everything works as intended
I disagree, I like ice cream but I'm not just going to eat any flavor when I walk into an ice cream shop. It doesn't mean I like every flavor either. Sure success can be measured only in subscriber number and let me correct my flaw. It shouldn't be measured in comparison to another company's subscriber numbers especially when they entered at a time where there were very few quality MMO's to play. Obviously there isn't just hunger for 1 flavor of MMO as you can see some prefer and want Sci-Fi, others prefer Fantasy, some prefer more story driven, others just want to hang out with friends. There are different goals to be had in an MMORPG rather than just 1 goal (as opposed to most non-MMORPG games).
Yes, the game has to sell, and an MMO most importantly needs people, but how much do you need to have a "successful" MMO. I do NOT think they have to be on par with the highest seller to be considered successful. I don't think you even need a million. Whats the defining characteristic that seperates successful from unsuccessful? I think too many try and use the 10+ million mark that WoW has set which is far too high. How is EVE considered successful with over 300k (not even 1 million)? I disagree with you on many points there except the 1st which pointed out a flaw that I hopefully cleared up.
If SOE hadn't have pulled the NGE on us it might still hae upwards of 300+k players playing it. That is not that bad considering most P2P games seem to cap out at around 150k players. If they had gone in and fixed what was broken and just kept adding content SWG could have seen a lot more players by now. Instead they decided to make it more "iconic" and now it is only a shallow pool of a game it once was.
Well the Bioware Quote and my Jam Research are merely the psychology of the average person. If you want to create a game which is more fun to more people, you naturally want to understand the psychology of your audience.
Neither the Quote or my use of the Research says sandbox games can't exist. They simply describe sandbox games as a minority thing.
To be honest, aside from the fact that this Choice Overload research is awesome info for anyone interested in game design, I'm not sure it directly applies to a sandbox vs. themepark debate. I can cite many reasons Themeparks are more successful/fun games than Sandbox, but "Sandboxes give you too much choice" isn't one of them.
I'm all for variety and think eventually someone will make a full sandbox game. I won't play it because "sandboxes give you too much choice". I don't want to be handheld, but I don't want to wander around aimlessly either.
As for the research, I think there is probably ALOT of research into "too much choice". I doubt any of it applies to games though. I have played Oblivion and Morrowwind and think they offer too many choices although most people in this post will hold those up as the gold standard of sandboxes. (Oblivion i dislike the scaling level mobs mostly). People don't want to make the "wrong" choice. With single player games you can usually load an old saved game and change your decision. In an MMO, you'll have to reroll or agonize over spoiler sites first.
I agree with the ice cream analogy, while there needs to be more than 1 flavor, you want to make a profit selling the lesser flavors too. WoW is rumored to cost $60M to develop. That means they expected to get more than 1 million box sales (monthly costs go to future development and maintenance). If a AAA company were to make a large investment in an sandbox MMO they would need a forcast of sales in that range within a reasonable period of time. Eve can exist on much smaller numbers because it started small and grew.
Stretching the analogy is pointeless since you will end up with the same result.
Do the customers want most to watch TV, washing the dishes or enjoying the meal?
They enjoy the meal.
Do the customers want most the fruits, ice cream or pasta?
They enjoy the ice cream.
Do the ...
etc.
You will end up with ice cream flavour.
I think you got wrong impression that I think game needs WoW subs to be successful. I just pointed out on subs as income.Any project that can earn money can be called success. More it earns, the better. It's that simple.
Why would I try to penetrate some minor market and risk my money when I can dig right next to Blizzard?
The truth is, non mainstream games have only little audience. Look at EVE. Very complex, sandbox, PVP based game with 300k subscribers! The 'sad part' is that most of those subs are carebears(or alts) never leaving high sec nor getting involved in any PVP or deeper game mechanics ever.
While I understand what you are trying to say, I would say it is more wishes than reasonable business POV.
When the market gets saturated, the time for change will come. No worries.
EDIT:
It's funny because I used to run ice cream shop for some time
Stretching the analogy is pointeless since you will end up with the same result.
Do the customers want most to watch TV, washing the dishes or enjoying the meal?
They enjoy the meal.
Do the customers want most the fruits, ice cream or pasta?
They enjoy the ice cream.
Do the ...
etc.
You will end up with ice cream flavour.
Well see, this is less direct of an analogy than my ice cream flavors. I stuck to 1 general thing and was just pointing out that even though the concept amongst all flavors are the same, its all ice cream, the flavors do matter to the subscribers. What you did help me point out is the difficulty with MMORPG's. There's many things to do in an MMORPG like real life and who's to say they will actually enjoy that meal over watching TV. There lies the issue with MMORPG's, the MMORPG people all desire doing different things however, current MMORPG's are only offering 1 flavor. There's also different ways to go about PvE, PvP, crafting etc. and little flavors within those areas. I'm sure when ice cream came out, it only came out with one flavor but it didn't stop other people from desiring other flavors and that didn't stop companies from releasing flavors to fulfill a niche within the ice cream market. In this context, I don't feel my analogy stretched at all, just placed within a different context for ease of argument and pointing out what I'm trying to get at.
I think you got wrong impression that I think game needs WoW subs to be successful. I just pointed out on subs as income.
Any project that can earn money can be called success. More it earns, the better. It's that simple.
Why would I try to penetrate some minor market and risk my money when I can dig right next to Blizzard?
Oh I didn't get the wrong impression or mean to imply that you were, I was just trying to extend it to the rest of the thread, not just a specific reply to you since some will try and gauge a game's success in comparing subs to WoW (and some companies might try to expect it upon designing and releasing their games in direct competition to WoW) and just believe this MIGHT be a misconception that companies should ditch. Why not dig next to Blizzard but focus on a niche within Blizzard's market? Wouldn't this make it easier to grab an immediate audience while keeping that crowd to your game if Blizzard is taking a less focused approach?
The truth is, non mainstream games have only little audience. Look at EVE. Very complex, sandbox, PVP based game with 300k subscribers! The 'sad part' is that most of those subs are carebears(or alts) never leaving high sec nor getting involved in any PVP or deeper game mechanics ever.
There's always a sad part to anything =( I haven't experienced enough of EVE to say anything more, aside from there are trade PvP does exist within the high sec and is a very deep game mechanic that I at least have tried to explore. Even if people don't explore the PvP side of the combat track, there are other tracks in there to consider (again, I cannot say anything more).This is also what makes EVE successful without requiring a large amount of players. The size of the audience should not matter in regards to success, its again, whether the investors make their profit and whether their game is fun to the audience they target. I think more companies should start considering this, it would cost less and be easier to turn a profit from rather than try to imitate what Blizzard accomplished (which is near-impossible today, I don't want to have to eat my words by just using impossible
While I understand what you are trying to say, I would say it is more wishes than reasonable business POV.
When the market gets saturated, the time for change will come. No worries.
Yes its wishes for the time being. I think the market has grown enough where now companies can consider a more focused effort in terms of their games without worrying about whether or not there are people that will take them up on their opportunities. Yes, costs and rewards are important but I don't think a company should feel the need to dump the same amounts of resources as Blizzard has to make a quality game and they shouldn't expect (yet alone shoot for) the same results either. Those were different times when WoW came into being.
EDIT:
It's funny because I have run ice cream shop for some time
Lol, how ironic
the not enough customers is a load of crap. SWG, a horribly bugged, completely unfinished game managed to get 300k subscribers half a decade ago.
A well made sandbox game could easily do a million plus. However this will never happen since the investors want to keep remaking wow in another IP hoping to get 10+ million
I think they just don't know how to market it so they can't sell the idea to the investors. Selling people an experience the make for themselves is a difficult concept to get their heads around to the large corp mindset.
Well games are all about choices, so research about the underlying psychology of how people make choices is useful.
I mean you can stumble onto success in games, or you can create a game with knowledge of the actual, scientific, psychological factors that cause a game to be fun. The latter method is wiser.
But yeah, a decision in the game is just like a decision anywhere else in your life. And if that decision has been created by the game designer in a way that optimally appeals to your aesthetic sense, psychology, etc, then you're going to get more fun out of the game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver