Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Does sandbox have a weaker business case than themeparks?
jpnz
Member Posts: 3,529
I was recently contacted by a business associate that I worked with a few days/months/years ago.
The work was IT related regarding some tools and their ROI (return of investment).
This particular work is somewhat similar to the themepark / sandbox divide and I'm thinking if it can be applied here.
Basically, a company hired us to to get some numbers for a tool they wanted to do XYZ.
Either the company paid someone to make them XYZ using the tools, or train their staff to make the XYZ.
Both had their postivies and negatives, training their staff meant the company could do more with the tools later while paying up-front meant they got what they wanted quicker with less cost; since training fees could be ignored.
The numbers were looked at and the 'pay up-front' was selected. From a business point of view, the 'pay-up-front' had less risk and better ROI for ABC amount of years.
I'm always told that sandbox is 'devs giving the player the tools to make content' while themepark is 'devs creating the content'. If that is the case, can the above example be applied to the sandbox / themepark discussion?
Purely from a business case point of view, themepark has 'less risk'. Players know what they are getting.
Could this be a reason why people prefer to play themepark games more than sandbox ones?
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Comments
No, the reason is much simpler: there are no good sandbox games out there (maybe Eve). People prefer playing triple-A games with a focus on PVE in the long term. Most sandbox games that exist nowadays never left the beta status, and almost all are focusing on PVP.
So the "people" actually don't have a choice. From the games they know (and 99% of the people know not more then the top 5 games) they are all themepark games.
Currently playing: EverQuest
Waiting for Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen
It has been clear for 6+ years that people prefer theme park games over sandbox ones.
I mean, Rift is an example of a polished, well-executed game that is successful.
What this thread is about is, why?
Why do people prefer themeparks?
Like the example I provided; is it because they know what they are getting? ie. less risk
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
It's simply harder to achieve the same level of gratification in sandbox compared to themepark. The sense of gratification keeps players going and not feeling 'bored'.
The most common complaint that I've heard from friends playing sandbox games is "I'm bored coz there's nothing much going on"
I prefer themepark games. But I dont like most themeparks that are popular today. Its probably true that the popular games 2011 and successful games that was rleased the last 6 years should be called themepark games. But a themepark game can also be very different and still be a themepark. There is no reason they should all feel like clones.
People that like popular themepark clones can certainly find good games. Sandbox fans can also find some good games.
But if you are looking for themepark games that are different and based on other ideas compared to popular clones there is not much available. It seems most developers and companies are afraid to try new ideas. Or to go back to older ideas that are no longer used in the most popular new themeparks. This is sad. Because there are a lot of players that cant find a good game they can enjoy. If you try WoW and some of the popular clones and dont like them there is not much you can do. At least if you like themeparks and not hardcore sandbox games.
That's what we get from the instant gratification generation. People no long want to work for their rewards. They would prefer to just put as little time and effort in, be handed their epic lutz, and move on. Gone are the days of mmo's taking months of play time to reach max level. Gone are the days that the game was more about the sights, the journey, and the community.
We have entered the era of the soloist mmo. If a game requires a group to do anything, it's just too much effort. Already mmo's are devolving into singler player games with a built in internet chatroom. Sadly all of that has lead to some of the worst gaming communities I have ever seen. So even that internet chatroom in game is pretty worthless.
I'd guess it has to do with the two best sandbox games out there (SWG and Eve) being 8 years old, while every sandbox title since then has been made by a small team as opposed to many more theme parks being made overall, and many of those being high profile, big budget titles. The reality is that Eve and Star Wars Galaxies were both hits. But WoW was a megahit. That changed everything in terms of where developers wanted to throw money. I hate when people say that sandboxes have failed since those titles. Because there hasn't been a single sandbox in that time that had any type of a sizable budget, and not many sandbox titles overall.
https://www.therepopulation.com - Sci Fi Sandbox.
A good sandbox game offers players some freedom to live out their crativity.
The right idea at the right moment can have outstanding success (Minecraft).
Themeparks allow more control developersided and software develppers be control freaks obviously.
I would make a world that i give a natural law (rules) and the player can do within this rules whatever is possible. They will balance themself - only bugs/flaws in the natural law need to be adressed.
No whining for fotm classes will be ever have any impact bcs there is no balancing.
If a player finds a way to speedkill other players and mobs the other players will find countermeasures and the mobs who be unable to withstand will die out and be replaced with mobs that can defend themself.
But i would guide the players into the game and offer them also safe places with npc ruled kingdoms and lore quests bcs we do not start in the stoenage time period living in caves and fighting with wooden sticks...
From this safe spots, with tight social rules they may advance toward the unexplored wilderness where they can live out themself or they decide to stay in the safe kingdoms where they may have a social only sandbox with much themepark gameplay.
Kingdoms could fight Daoc like to expand their borders.
Wages and scientists be keepers of aeons old lore.
Bankers wage monetary wars.
Etc.
Adventurers slay demones and dragons becoming famed heroes while somewhere in the wild a player driven empire may grow with players rule as nobles and kings fighting to stay alive, conquer, become emperors...
This would work when done right at the right time but no indie developer has the financial background to do it and the big houses be control freaks and lack creativity.
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
MWO Music Video - What does the Mech say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF6HYNqCDLI
Johnny Cash - The Man Comes Around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0x2iwK0BKM
Themeparks definitely do not have less risk. There have been plenty of themepark games to fall flat on their face. However, I would say they take less time and resources to do right.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
Well in last 6+ years there were no sandbox released, aside from small indie projects. So kinda hard to make claim that they do prefer.
Of course I agree that more players prefer themepark over sandbox. Still most players have not experienced any sandbox.
Problem is that sandbox games are atm created only by niche, indie developers who cater for very small amount of players = namely for pvp full loot ype of player (Darkfall, MO) or ultra-hard-core simulator wanting players like Wurm.
None of those type of games that are niche even in already niche sandbox sub-genre, have any chance to be succesful in mainstream and aquiring like 400-500 k players.
People prefer themeparks becasue they want to be directed what to do. They want something showing them way where they shold go and what to do.
So imho sandbox sub-genre have a chance in incorporating some themepark elements like quests (just in less linear way)
and creating some kind of sandbox / themepark mix.
As for 'risk'. There are plenty of themeparks that failed hard both from player perspective and from investor perspective. Just to name few - Warhammer Online, AoC, Vanguard.
Even though developing themeparks is considered less risk because :
a) most players are used to this kind of enetertaiment in opposition to sandbox which most mmorpg players have not played ever in their life
b) most developers are used to create themeparks. Even more single player games have themepark construction insttead of sandbox one.
c) less 'inventing' work needed from game creator. You can follow certain patterns - in sandbox you have to 'invent' many things / system by yourself as there is no "main" sandbox construct out there you can follow.
etc
The major problem with sand box games, from the main-stream gamer prospective, is that they lack direction of any kind. When you go from a themepark game to a completly open sandbox game. You feel as though you are being tossed to the wolves so to speak. While I understand that this is actually the beauty of a sandbox, the total freedom to do what ever you want. Some gamers require a nudge of some kind, or just a bit of a helping hand giving them some idea of what they should be doing.
If a sandbox was to meet the halfway point, and give some small direction for those that wanted it. But at the same time give a huge amount of open freedom. You might actually draw some players back to the sandbox genra.
The only reason why sandbox games don't do aswell as themepark games is money. Themepark games can spend up to 100 million on developement, while sandbox games are usually made by indie developement studios on a small budget. if blizzard made a sandbox game tomorrow then sandbox games would be the new king because most people follow developement studios and not games..have you heard the phrase " its bioware" recently
It's the players that lack direction not the games.
Was a typo, corrected
and to be a bit provocative: the majority of players wants to be guided, not to think for their own.
I agree OP, it is certainly one of the reasons, maybe even the main one who knows?
An other reason is that you'll find a lot more "sandbox player" playing themeparks, than "themepark player" playing sandbox (pvp is/was definitely a no-no for a lot of people, pve is hardly something you'll refuse to play, just to give the most obvious ex). They are probably other reasons too. Like its so much easier to make strict rules, rather than open rules (its easier to give only one weapon per class, than balancing weapons for all the classes).
They are a ton of reasons, but i think you can reduce them all in the ratio you are talking about in your OP post. That's also why our overall economy is short time based rather than long time investment based, because of the inerrant risk a longer time mean. The thing is, it might put us all in serious problems if we only use short time investments, i think that's why government regulations are good too. Mmo don't have government regulations, or any kind of regulations, they just have 30+ years old cry babies.
Thats indicative of the society we live in these days, people need to be told what to do, people aren't thinking for themselves anymore..there are alot of people walking around like zombies waiting for their overlord to give them direction.
watch the film Idiocracy because that's where we are heading.
If you look at it that way (what the OP said). Sandboxes should be paying its player. The only true or rather purest sandbox is Second Life. Players create all the content and devs provide the tools. With other sand boxes players are paythem money and doing all the work, assuming players actually create the content. Then again, they're not really creating it. they're making premade stuff.
idk. Theres a place for good sandboxes. People just have to enter them knowing they can't be the best at anything. With the exceptions of Second Life. I think the sandboxes we know of like eve or whatever should be called pottery class. You're making planned out stuff. While in Second Life, you're actually making stuff and making it function with it's ingame scripts.
Agreed. This one is a no-brainer. It's like asking why cruises are so popular.
When people are paying to be entertained, they often want the entertainment lined up and laid out for them. For many, each moment spent planning the next phase is a moment of entertainment wasted.
There's also the issue of weighing possible blame vs possible praise for the choices made regasrding eisure activities. Most people find praising another source a better alternative than being to blame for one's choice. Anyone who has ever done a 3AM interstate road trip with a bunch of druinken friends can attest to this.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Players have plenty of direction. Their direction is a desire to be entertained without having to invest a year's worth of time.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
As I often point out.
Look back through the entire history of videogames, at how simulations do vs. regular games. They have a smaller niche audience so don't sell as well.
Sandboxes are simulations.
Therefore they're understandably produced less often and with smaller budgets.
If a sandbox is made which is more game and less simulation, then there's more of a market, of course. But being a world simulation is a pretty important part of being a sandbox (to most people.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
We heard the same from Oblivion (and some of the other ES games), and we'll hear it again with Skyrim.
I suspect that the like/dislike of sandboxes mostly is a fuction of personal creativity.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I'm waiting for a AAA PvE Sandbox, but I know it's not coming.
So I play other stuff and ignore all the FFA PvP indie sandbox games (garbage)
One mans trash is another mans treasure ? I belive so .
I suspect that the like/dislike of sandboxes mostly is a fuction of personal creativity.
It has nothing to do with 'creativity', 'intelligence' or anything of the like. It has to do with personal preference. As sandbox mmorpg exist right now, it's a preference for PvP or PvE content.
If you take the PvP out of Eve, would it have 300,000 players? How about Darkfall or Mortal Online? For all that sandboxes are supposed to be 'virtual worlds', as they have been implemented they are sterile and boring. That's why they need the PvP. It livens things up.
Sandboxes didn't start with a built in disadvantage, but they certainly have one now. It's the image that sandboxes have given themselves and it's worse than the image that the theme park games have given themselves.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.