Problem here is that you have to make a "well-made, orgional themepark" that is a BETTER "well-made, origional themepark" then the 20 other guys that hoping to do just the same thing...and better then Wow/Rift/Aion are right now in order to win those players from them. In order to do that you generaly have to sink enough resources into the Development Budget to be competitive with those guys.
Thats why EA's investors are NOT so happy with SWTOR right now, despite the fact that it probably still has around 1 million players, significantly more then EvE. While CCP's investors are pretty happy. Because in order to get a rate of return on every dollar they sunk into SWTOR that's equivalent to the rate CCP got on every dollar sunk into EvE... TOR would probably have to get and SUSTAIN more like 3-5 million players then the 1 million it has.
There is no doubt that Themeparks CAN be proffitable, and CAN be decent investments too. It's just that the competition there is alot stiffer.
Frankly EvE isn't even all that appealing as a "sandbox" game....
- It's 10 years old.
- You play a spacship
- It has a very STEEP learning curve.
- It's unfreindly to new players
- FFA PvP with rampant Griefing and Meta-Gaming
- Very grindy.
- It's combat system has been likened to playing a spreadsheet.
- no IP backing.
The fact that INSPITE of all that it still manages around 300K-400K subscriptions should tell you something about the potential for sandbox games with more "mainstream" features in other aspects of the game.
I'm not convinced that is correct.
Let's look at it a different way:
1, people have a lot invested, have friends and have found that this type of game appeals to them
2, Not everyone cares about whether one is a person or s ship. Heck, some people on this very site have stated that they don't care about face sliders and just use some generic look when maknig an avatar. But point well taken and something to consider...
3, there are people who LIKE this type of game. Heck, I like ffa pvp games as well as meta gaming. That's not a deterrent
4, not everyone cares. I actually prefer grindy games over quest based games. Besides the fact that the "grind" for these games allows for grouping to accomplish goals. Some might also think this a plus.
5, there are people who like complicated systems and the ability to tweak every bit of their character. Some would think this a plus.
6, this very well could be a reason that a lot of people haven't tried the game but even if this was EVE via Star Wars I don't think you would get a million plus playing.
So my thought is that there is a lot to EVE that right off the bat appeals to players regardless of the sandbox element. These things won't dissuade but might just "seal the deal".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
My point is, devs actually know what they're doing, despite someone's ravings at some forum. Why do you think so many devs have turned down the proposition of making an AAA sandbox? Maybe they've done their homework there too.
Maybe they actually dont know what they are doing. Ive met too many people in different industries that say and act like they know what they are doing, but really cant pull it off when it comes right down to it.
Maybe they turned down the proposition of making a AAA Sandbox because they did their homework and realized they "Cant Do It" because of limitations and its "Too Hard" to implement...**/cough..zenimax.../cough**
Maybe they just arent as great as they say they are and just hoping the average MMO gamer doesnt find out
Just because someone calls themselves a "professional" doesnt mean they are good at what they do
With all of the failed MMO games in the past several years, I don't think we should assume these companies have any clue what they are doing. Only a couple of them are even getting the message that the same old themepark games are going to be DOA. If you are game company currently building an MMO and your gameplay is based on the same old themepark mechanics, you might as well close the doors now. The odds of success in the "also-released" MMO market are slim.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
The sandbox crowd may not be massive but we are loyal, long-term customers when the right game comes along.
That's the biggest problem with Themepark games, most companies can't keep up with the content so a lot of players leave after a short period of time.
I'd much rather have 100K loyal customers for 5 years rather than the huge fluctuations in player populations we've seen in themeparks released over the past few years.
Originally posted by cutthecrap The MMO with the most potential is I think a themepark/sandbox hybrid, that manages to use the best elements of both design paths in an organic way.
That's easy to say, but what are the best elements of both? And who is the target audience? I think you'd pull in a bunch of theme park players, but you'd alienate a lot of sandbox players.
I think you're right, btw, and I think the industry agrees with you. There are a couple examples and I think there's going to be more as time goes on.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The sandbox crowd may not be massive but we are loyal, long-term customers when the right game comes along.
That's the biggest problem with Themepark games, most companies can't keep up with the content so a lot of players leave after a short period of time.
I'd much rather have 100K loyal customers for 5 years rather than the huge fluctuations in player populations we've seen in themeparks released over the past few years.
This is another great point. Sandbox players are a market that will pay you a sub fee (or whatever) for YEARS, not just a few months after release. We build communities and we make that game our home. I played SWG from release until NGE, and there was a long time when I was paying $45 per month for three paid accounts. A lot of people pay for multiple accounts in EVE as well.
What blows my mind is that people and developers aren't putting this all together. We learned from WoW statistics that only a tiny part of the population cares about end-game raiding. Most people in WoW who stuck around simply re-rolled. Re-rolling isn't good enough to retain people anymore, especially if you do like Bioware did and simply mirror classes and abilities.
You can't keep adding themepark story content at the rate it will be consumed. Other mechanics must start being employed if companies want to keep people interested.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Every MMO beside WOW is niche! Every Themepark has failed compared to WOW and compared to the expectations investors and publishers had!
/snip
Yet for not having a massive Sandbox crowd: 6 Million people play Minecraft 10 Million people play Skyrim (sandboxy virtual fantasy world) 22 Million people play GTA IV (which is an open world game and therefore sandboxy) Unknown how many millions of people play sandboxy browser games.
/snip
And yeah, people just dont play shitty games!
Even if we ignore WoW, themepark revenue is way higher than sandbox ones.
Aion/DDO/Lotro/Rift all have 500k-2M subs each. Highest sub for sandbox is EVE with 400-500k.
Despite the millions who play 'sandboxy' non-MMO games, it doesn't translate into sales for sandbox MMO games.
Going by your logic, millions should play PlanetSide cause millions play COD/BF3 which isn't true.
Agree with your last point but being 'shitty' has nothing to do with sandbox/themepark.
McDonalds does more business than Outback Steakhouse in a day, but where would you rather eat? It's the same for my MMO. I can feast on some generic fast food type MMO, or I can treat myself to a bloomin onion, and a juicy T-Bone. At the end of the day McDonalds makes more money that is true, but Outback does enough business to turn a profit without copying McDonald's menu.
You've answered your own question..."McDonalds does more business than Outback Steakhouse in a day ..."
So does that mean that Outback should close it's doors, or switch to selling fast food? No of course not! Why should it be so in the gaming industry? I think your mind is clouded by greed. Where has copying WoW really gotten anyone anyway? Seems like all these clones just fizzle out.
What it means is that there is much more money to made in convenience food than specialty menu food. You can bleat all you want about greed but companies are about making profits. I wouldn't mind having CCPs profits but I'd rather have Blizzards profits.
Then why does Outback Steakhouse even exist? By your logic there should only be convenience food available because that is more popular. Do you see how ridiculous your mindset on this is now?
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Problem here is that you have to make a "well-made, orgional themepark" that is a BETTER "well-made, origional themepark" then the 20 other guys that hoping to do just the same thing...and better then Wow/Rift/Aion are right now in order to win those players from them. In order to do that you generaly have to sink enough resources into the Development Budget to be competitive with those guys.
Thats why EA's investors are NOT so happy with SWTOR right now, despite the fact that it probably still has around 1 million players, significantly more then EvE. While CCP's investors are pretty happy. Because in order to get a rate of return on every dollar they sunk into SWTOR that's equivalent to the rate CCP got on every dollar sunk into EvE... TOR would probably have to get and SUSTAIN more like 3-5 million players then the 1 million it has.
There is no doubt that Themeparks CAN be proffitable, and CAN be decent investments too. It's just that the competition there is alot stiffer.
Frankly EvE isn't even all that appealing as a "sandbox" game....
- It's 10 years old.
- You play a spacship
- It has a very STEEP learning curve.
- It's unfreindly to new players
- FFA PvP with rampant Griefing and Meta-Gaming
- Very grindy.
- It's combat system has been likened to playing a spreadsheet.
- no IP backing.
The fact that INSPITE of all that it still manages around 300K-400K subscriptions should tell you something about the potential for sandbox games with more "mainstream" features in other aspects of the game.
Two things you will make profit: Either...
differentiate yourself from your competition
or cut production costs
Those two are pretty much universal from business to business. What didn't SWTOR do? They certainly didn't cut costs. Sadly they didn't manage to differentiate themselves enough from the competition either. You can't out-do WoW. Its foolish to even try. Even with a massive budget.
Still, SWTOR probably covered its development costs easily. The only reason why EA's investors would be unhappy is that the game didn't have quite the success they expected. They made profit, but it wasn't nearly as much as they wanted.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
The sandbox crowd may not be massive but we are loyal, long-term customers when the right game comes along.
That's the biggest problem with Themepark games, most companies can't keep up with the content so a lot of players leave after a short period of time.
I'd much rather have 100K loyal customers for 5 years rather than the huge fluctuations in player populations we've seen in themeparks released over the past few years.
This is another great point. Sandbox players are a market that will pay you a sub fee (or whatever) for YEARS, not just a few months after release. We build communities and we make that game our home. I played SWG from release until NGE, and there was a long time when I was paying $45 per month for three paid accounts. A lot of people pay for multiple accounts in EVE as well.
But can you actually make a AAA sandbox MMORPG for 6 million dollars (100k x 60) and sustain and grow/expand said game with 1.5 million a month in subscription revenue?
That sounds like a lot of money, but if the answer is "yes" than why hasn't it been done?
The sandbox crowd may not be massive but we are loyal, long-term customers when the right game comes along.
That's the biggest problem with Themepark games, most companies can't keep up with the content so a lot of players leave after a short period of time.
I'd much rather have 100K loyal customers for 5 years rather than the huge fluctuations in player populations we've seen in themeparks released over the past few years.
Great point my brother, me too, these themeparks make people rush to level cap in 3 days doing quests, and after, they spend all the time doing the same instances over and over, but they become tired and leave, at least, until a new expansion with more instances. I'm an old school sandbox gamer that is loyal for years if I put my hands in a good sandbox focused in FFA pvp-pk with player-driven politics(I miss the old lineage 1, I'd want to be a korean).
My point is, devs actually know what they're doing, despite someone's ravings at some forum. Why do you think so many devs have turned down the proposition of making an AAA sandbox? Maybe they've done their homework there too.
Maybe they actually dont know what they are doing. Ive met too many people in different industries that say and act like they know what they are doing, but really cant pull it off when it comes right down to it.
Maybe they turned down the proposition of making a AAA Sandbox because they did their homework and realized they "Cant Do It" because of limitations and its "Too Hard" to implement...**/cough..zenimax.../cough**
Maybe they just arent as great as they say they are and just hoping the average MMO gamer doesnt find out
Just because someone calls themselves a "professional" doesnt mean they are good at what they do
With all of the failed MMO games in the past several years, I don't think we should assume these companies have any clue what they are doing. Only a couple of them are even getting the message that the same old themepark games are going to be DOA. If you are game company currently building an MMO and your gameplay is based on the same old themepark mechanics, you might as well close the doors now. The odds of success in the "also-released" MMO market are slim.
You're so right. Just look at the hype on just this site for up and coming mmo's like AA, The Repopulation and EOC and then compare them to TESO. From day one of it being mentioned and how the game was gonna play, it was already deemed a failure.
Indeed! I'm calling BS on the notion that there is this mythical mass of players that want a sandbox virtual world MMO. If there was one, I would hear about it, devs would see it, and there would be games for that crowd. As it stands, there's hardly one, and it has been like that for so long that merely saying there hasn't been the right one yet is not going to cut it. Many have tried, many have failed and even if these games were any good they would've showed much more interest from the public, don't you think?
How can you have a "massive" virtual world when you only have a handful of players to fill it. And how can you get funding to something that has such a small audience. You are doomed to wander from indie game to indie game...
Admit it. You are to rest of the MMORPG players what LARPers are to P&P role players. "Regular people" snicker at people who play D&D but everyone laughs at LARPers (no offense meant - but they do).
Ben "Yahtzee" Crosshaw hit the nail in the head: -"Eve players are to nerds what nerds are to normal people."
Even if some recent themeparks have failed or will fail in your eyes, I'm quite confident in saying that there will be no major shift towards sandboxes of any sort. People still love themeparks - they just don't like shitty games, thats all.
You're right in that there isn't as many MMO type gamers looking for traditional sandbox MMORPGs than there gamers looking for a more mainstream "themepark" type of experience.
With that said..."Massive" is sort of relative don't you think? In 2000, Ultima Online set the world record for largest online game....with a subscriber base of around 200,000. The king of the hill in the "Massive" Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games only had 200k subscribers. I think a good Sandbox game could pull that easily.
The reason we haven't seen many good sandbox games released recently is because all the publishers (who formerly funded sandbox games: Sony - EQ, EA - UO) are trying to leverage WOW's success at reaching MILLIONS of gamers (not just thousands) in effort to capitalize on the surge of casual gamers into the MMO space. This has LESS to do with Sandbox MMOs being good or bad, and more to do with basic economics and their drive to drive profits & increase / benefit shareholders.
Also, many of the indie developers that have tried to resurect the spirit of sandbox MMORPGs have failed in that they have tried to compete with the large publishers with only a fraction of the budget. They spend all their money on asthetics and other things the polished games from big publishers do well...and end up falling short when living up to all the features they promise the fan base. It also doesn't help things when you alienate a large portion of your already niche audience by changing up the formula (First Person View, Empty Space only environment, etc)
I have a different out look on the MMO industry than you do. I think the days of AAA publishers spending 10s-100s of millions of dollars over 2-3 years on MMO projects are over. (unless your Blizzard)
Given the relative failure of SWTOR, I think many large AAA game publishers are going to take a long hard look at how productive or effective tieing up that much money over a several year period is given how competitive the MMO market is....in addition to how competitive casual gaming has become (which modern themepark MMOs fall under).
Instead, I see them either pulling back to the console environment, or making smaller budget MMORPG games for smaller audiences....and with this will come the resurgance of sandbox MMORPGs. Don't forget, there are several million MMO gamers that have played WOW for 5+ years...and has played every other new themepark type MMO that has been released since. The reason they keep hoping from game to game isn't because the new games are of poor quality. The reason they keep switching to new games is because they are experiencing "themepark" fatigue. The kill / deliver quest they ran in WOW in 2006 is the same kill / deliver quest they ran in SW:TOR.
The time is right for something new....and when I say new, I don't mean adding wings, creating pubic quests, or voice over acting.
I bet if you did a study on the task-oriented attention span of the population of all people, you would find a correlation to the relational size of casuals versus long term players that would ape the population (if anyone knew it) of theme park versus sand box players.
Yeah, I just said a whole lot of nothing. I'll hit enter anyway what the hell.
The sandbox crowd may not be massive but we are loyal, long-term customers when the right game comes along.
That's the biggest problem with Themepark games, most companies can't keep up with the content so a lot of players leave after a short period of time.
I'd much rather have 100K loyal customers for 5 years rather than the huge fluctuations in player populations we've seen in themeparks released over the past few years.
This is another great point. Sandbox players are a market that will pay you a sub fee (or whatever) for YEARS, not just a few months after release. We build communities and we make that game our home. I played SWG from release until NGE, and there was a long time when I was paying $45 per month for three paid accounts. A lot of people pay for multiple accounts in EVE as well.
But can you actually make a AAA sandbox MMORPG for 6 million dollars (100k x 60) and sustain and grow/expand said game with 1.5 million a month in subscription revenue?
That sounds like a lot of money, but if the answer is "yes" than why hasn't it been done?
6 million? No. 20 million? Yes, and expect more than 100k subbers too, even at around 200k that still seems low. Remember with the example we're talking atleast 5 years of a loyal playerbase of even lets say 100k. so 100k x15 is 1.5 mill a month aye? x12... 18 mill give or take... times 5 years is 90 million dollars. Thats without box sales, and at a pretty small player base.
I don't care if a company hasn't done it, and you don't need a huge Dev team to actually do it. What i find the problem is investors. That is a risk to take going sandbox. It isn't proven by a super subed game like WoW is for Themepark models. So inverstors that know crap about MMOs and what makes players flock to them, want a proven product... Or so to speak.
I know those numbers are thrown out there and don't consider a lot of costs, but 20 mill is a hefty size for making a game, any game. Let alone one that charges a sub fee.
The "Youtube Pro": Someone who watches video's on said subject, and obviously has a full understanding of what is being said about such subject.
The sandbox crowd may not be massive but we are loyal, long-term customers when the right game comes along.
That's the biggest problem with Themepark games, most companies can't keep up with the content so a lot of players leave after a short period of time.
I'd much rather have 100K loyal customers for 5 years rather than the huge fluctuations in player populations we've seen in themeparks released over the past few years.
This is another great point. Sandbox players are a market that will pay you a sub fee (or whatever) for YEARS, not just a few months after release. We build communities and we make that game our home. I played SWG from release until NGE, and there was a long time when I was paying $45 per month for three paid accounts. A lot of people pay for multiple accounts in EVE as well.
But can you actually make a AAA sandbox MMORPG for 6 million dollars (100k x 60) and sustain and grow/expand said game with 1.5 million a month in subscription revenue?
That sounds like a lot of money, but if the answer is "yes" than why hasn't it been done?
I think sandbox games are likely cheaper to develop than themeparks. Just for starters you don't have to have hundreds of hours of voiceover content, and you really don't need to spend as much time on quest building. What you do is start building game machanics that allow the player to make content. Once those mechanics are flshed out, they can be used anywhere, including expansions.
The result of this is emergent gameplay, and this is exactly why so many people are talking about Day Z. For all its indy-developed alpha quality game mod charm, the gameplay mechanics are very simple, yet they allow very complex interactions between the players and the environment. This empowers the players to become their own content. SWG also played like this, and many people loved it.
This is only one example, but it's a faily fun one. SWG eventually put in a quest-building system where players themselves could build quests, complete with NPC's and rewards. SWG had almost nothing for quest content, but some of the most fun quests I did were player-made. That's just one small example, and that's to say nothing of the gameplay that emerges from the imaginations of the players when they are handed an interactive open world.
As for why it hasn't been done yet, well that's easy. Corporations are machines, and their only obligation and goals are to provide the shareholders with profits using as little risk as possible. Don't you think every game company to come along since WoW has gone into investor meetings talking about how brilliant WoW did in the market? Of course they did. Investors will pay for a shot at WoW's success, but they won't pay for niche games yet. Eventually they will get the message that WoW was a fluke, and there will be few winners like it in the future.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
I bet if you did a study on the task-oriented attention span of the population of all people, you would find a correlation to the relational size of casuals versus long term players that would ape the population (if anyone knew it) of theme park versus sand box players.
Yeah, I just said a whole lot of nothing. I'll hit enter anyway what the hell.
You made my day.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I bet if you did a study on the task-oriented attention span of the population of all people, you would find a correlation to the relational size of casuals versus long term players that would ape the population (if anyone knew it) of theme park versus sand box players.
Yeah, I just said a whole lot of nothing. I'll hit enter anyway what the hell.
I think I understand where your getting at (I think)......and it's really common sense.
Think about all the different kinds of gamer demographics....and put them in a pie graph. I think it's probably fair to say that there are more people who classify themselves as "gamers" that have to deal with this thing called life (homework, tests, projects, work, friends, kids, wife / husband, pets, hobbies, and a number of other responsibilities) than there are gamers who have the luxury of being able to spend 1-4 hours at a time, 5-7 days a week on a game.
Considering most "themepark" games are geared to streamline the MMO experience (reduce time required to progress, reduce dependency on other players, simplify actions, abilities, choice, more direction, less risk, etc.).....its NO SUPRISE that there are more potential MMO gamers for something like WOW, than there are for a game like EVE.
Then why does Outback Steakhouse even exist? By your logic there should only be convenience food available because that is more popular. Do you see how ridiculous your mindset on this is now?
Why do baristas at Starbucks even exist when lawyers make more money? You think companies should consciously make products & services that make less money compared to more money and you have the gall to say my mindset is ridiculous.
As for why it hasn't been done yet, well that's easy. Corporations are machines, and their only obligation and goals are to provide the shareholders with profits using as little risk as possible. Don't you think every game company to come along since WoW has gone into investor meetings talking about how brilliant WoW did in the market? Of course they did. Investors will pay for a shot at WoW's success, but they won't pay for niche games yet. Eventually they will get the message that WoW was a fluke, and there will be few winners like it in the future.
I wonder. The MMO that at the moment has the most chance of being a big success is GW2, yet that one isn't a sandbox MMO at all, but firmly in the themepark style of things. More of a next-gen themepark MMO. If it becomes hugely popular and successful, then what you'll see is a number of big game companies trying to make that kind of themepark MMO's.
Only when a sandbox MMO or sandbox-themepark MMO hybrid becomes hugely successful, especially financially successful, then you'll see more and more companies trying their hand at big sandbox/hybrid development. But there'll be a number of sandbox MMO's and sandbox hybrids already in the upcoming years: WoD, Repopulation, Undead Labs' zombie MMO, AA, to name a few.
But can you actually make a AAA sandbox MMORPG for 6 million dollars (100k x 60) and sustain and grow/expand said game with 1.5 million a month in subscription revenue?
That sounds like a lot of money, but if the answer is "yes" than why hasn't it been done?
6 million? No. 20 million? Yes, and expect more than 100k subbers too, even at around 200k that still seems low. Remember with the example we're talking atleast 5 years of a loyal playerbase of even lets say 100k. so 100k x15 is 1.5 mill a month aye? x12... 18 mill give or take... times 5 years is 90 million dollars. Thats without box sales, and at a pretty small player base.
I don't care if a company hasn't done it, and you don't need a huge Dev team to actually do it. What i find the problem is investors. That is a risk to take going sandbox. It isn't proven by a super subed game like WoW is for Themepark models. So inverstors that know crap about MMOs and what makes players flock to them, want a proven product... Or so to speak.
I know those numbers are thrown out there and don't consider a lot of costs, but 20 mill is a hefty size for making a game, any game. Let alone one that charges a sub fee.
Fair points all around, cheers.
To continue the debate, say you tell investors you need 20 million to make a game that will bring back 96 million over 5 years.
90 for 5 years of subs at 15 per sub with 100k subs, 6 million for box sales of 100k.
"Profit" then would be 70 million over 5 years, or 14 million a year.
Now, how much does it cost to maintain the servers, add patches/content, pay for the building, bandwidth, salaries, health care, etc. etc. etc.
Let's again use VERY funny numbers and say that you'll spend half of that 14 million per year to keep the game running, or 7 million.
So you are now down to 35 million profit over 5 years after a 20 million dollar investment.
Is that worth it?
If it was a gaurantee, that if I gave you 20 million in 5 years you'd give me back 55 million (my original 20 + 35 in pure profit) I'd say that would be a fair deal, if it were a sure thing and I had 20 million to part with in the first place.
But there are no sure things in gaming and in investing. Especially over 5 years.
Investors would want a ROI on launch day, and continuing profit each quarter after that. That's a good investment.
Meaning if I give you 20 million, I want more than 20 million back after the first quarter of launch not after 5 years.
Which means you'd have to sell a LOT more boxes and retain enough subs to pay me back and give me a profit in 3 months.
So let's say you sell 250k boxes and have 3 months of subs at 200, 150, and 100 respectively.
250k x 60 per box = 15 million
200k x 15 + 150k x 15 + 100k x 15 = 6.75 million
So 21.75 million back after 3 months, which is only 1.75 million in profit after my initial investment of 20 million.
"This deal is getting worse all the time." to quote a famous Gambler.
So I've made 1.75 million in the first 3 months and will make 1.5 million a month in each month after that.
You factor in costs to keep the game running, that 1.75 million becomes $875,000 (again let's assume half) and that 1.5 million per month from 100k subs at 15$/mo becomes $750,000 / month.
Enough to make expansions? Hire more people? Grow the company and business? Create new content and features fast enough to retain that 100k player base and possibly expand it?
If I'm only making 750,000 a month from my investment of 20 millions dollars, I am going to start initiating cost cutting measures like staff reductions to try and bolster the next quarters numbers so that my investing partners don't panic.
If I'm not a gamer myself, I don't understand that cutting people to save money is NOT how to expand a game and it's player base in the long run, but hey, if I can squeeze out more money for the next 6 months by cutting costs the game can shut down in a year or two and I would have made enough ROI to feel good about myself and keep the companies stock from dipping too low.
Now you see how and why the business works as it does...
Original UO didn't really "work" either, so EQ was a lot more popular.
What made UO really work and attract and retain a much larger populaion? Their peak in subs?
After the Trammel / Felucca split.
Just like EvE with low/null/high sec split.
All FFA PvP all the time, full loot all the time...
Just. Doesn't. Work.
Sandbox devs learn this, the sub-genre might catch on and be a LOT more popular.
I'm still waiting for the PvE focused AAA sandbox MMO with consensual only PvP that doesn't force you to PvP to play the "good parts" of the game.
The catalyst that will enable this change is advanced, layered, complex AI that creates dynamic PvE content in the same fashion that player versus player in sandbox always create dynamic content.
SWG's TEF system was the perfect solution IMO.
It was a VERY good system because it didn't seperate PvP and PvE geographicaly like UO did (and EVE) but it still allowed players to make a choice as to whether or not they PvP'd at all and also choose when to fight and when not to.
And this is pretty much what is happening over at EVE right now with the extension of Hulkageddon.
People storming the forums complaining about getting blown up in hi-sec. There's a serious misconception that pvp in EVE is seperated by sec level, and it's not. Hi-sec isn't concensual pvp, never has been, never will. Hi-sec isn't there to seperate PvP and give PvEers a "safe" place to PvE, it never was and never will.
Trying to draw a comparison between Tramell in UO and hi-sec in EVE is a huge falesy. They're not the smae thing. Tramell was an alienation to many of the players of UO, something that was added a year or two after the release, and something that many people feel is compareable to the SWG NGE.
I don't know were you got the idea that PvE and PvP are seperated by geography in EVE, or that anyone has a "choice" to pvp or not. The only choice you get in EVE is whether or not to take steps to prevent losing your ship or not, unfortunetly there are a lot of people who play EVE and don't understand that. I get the distinct impression you would be one of those people.
What EVE showed is that you DON'T HAVE TO pull a tramell to make a succesfull sandbox. You can have PvP and PvE existing side by side in the entire world and still work. EVE only makes it harder to blow up another player, but doesn't remove that possibility. Most of the games that try to go the sandbox route get this wrong. Either they effectively remove the PvP dynamic (UO tramell, Ryzom), or they fail at providing a place were people can minimize their exposure to pvp (Darkfall, Mortal online, Face of mankind) resulting in a game that becomes all about killing other players.
CCP is the only studio to actually get it right. A sandbox needs to allow for a full range of dynamics, that means providing a multitutde of activities that will appeal to a wide range of playstyels, and pvp is one of those things. That then means you need to provide a way for people to minimize their exposure to pvp, because not everyone wants to always fight other players, and even fewer people want to play an MMO that is nothing more then an online deathmatch.
Lineage 2 is another expample of a game that did it wrong and then did it right. Originally it was very easy to be a PK, even with the penalties. There were ways to prevent losing gear or getting around the gear loss with the aid of others. Over the years NCsoft worked to elminate these loopholes, and today it's actually challenging to be a PK and PK's aren't running rampant. I remember when I could literally no leave the town on talking island for days because there were PK's outside the gates, and they also happend to be some of the highest level players in the game. That was not fun. People complain that NCsoft made it to hard to be a PK, but the truth is it was good for the game. They didn't remove the playstyle, only made it more challenging.
Again, Lineage 2, a FFA pvp game that had gear dropping on death, was more sandbox then themepark, and had near 12m people playing it at one point.
As for why it hasn't been done yet, well that's easy. Corporations are machines, and their only obligation and goals are to provide the shareholders with profits using as little risk as possible. Don't you think every game company to come along since WoW has gone into investor meetings talking about how brilliant WoW did in the market? Of course they did. Investors will pay for a shot at WoW's success, but they won't pay for niche games yet. Eventually they will get the message that WoW was a fluke, and there will be few winners like it in the future.
I wonder. The MMO that at the moment has the most chance of being a big success is GW2, yet that one isn't a sandbox MMO at all, but firmly in the themepark style of things. More of a next-gen themepark MMO. If it becomes hugely popular and successful, then what you'll see is a number of big game companies trying to make that kind of themepark MMO's.
Only when a sandbox MMO or sandbox-themepark MMO hybrid becomes hugely successful, especially financially successful, then you'll see more and more companies trying their hand at big sandbox/hybrid development. But there'll be a number of sandbox MMO's and sandbox hybrids already in the upcoming years: WoD, Repopulation, Undead Labs' zombie MMO, AA, to name a few.
I agree with you. I think it's more likely that one of these indy games will finally hit the mark for a fun sandbox and will draw some attention. The only big-budget sandbox-hybrid game out there now is ArchAge. I'm hoping they get a publisher soon so we can see how it does eventually. It has a lot of interest on this website, that's for sure. There are some rumors of a publisher picking it up for the West floating around now. I hope so.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Problem here is that you have to make a "well-made, orgional themepark" that is a BETTER "well-made, origional themepark" then the 20 other guys that hoping to do just the same thing...and better then Wow/Rift/Aion are right now in order to win those players from them. In order to do that you generaly have to sink enough resources into the Development Budget to be competitive with those guys.
Thats why EA's investors are NOT so happy with SWTOR right now, despite the fact that it probably still has around 1 million players, significantly more then EvE. While CCP's investors are pretty happy. Because in order to get a rate of return on every dollar they sunk into SWTOR that's equivalent to the rate CCP got on every dollar sunk into EvE... TOR would probably have to get and SUSTAIN more like 3-5 million players then the 1 million it has.
There is no doubt that Themeparks CAN be proffitable, and CAN be decent investments too. It's just that the competition there is alot stiffer.
Frankly EvE isn't even all that appealing as a "sandbox" game....
- It's 10 years old.
- You play a spacship
- It has a very STEEP learning curve.
- It's unfreindly to new players
- FFA PvP with rampant Griefing and Meta-Gaming
- Very grindy.
- It's combat system has been likened to playing a spreadsheet.
- no IP backing.
The fact that INSPITE of all that it still manages around 300K-400K subscriptions should tell you something about the potential for sandbox games with more "mainstream" features in other aspects of the game.
Two things you will make profit: Either...
differentiate yourself from your competition
or cut production costs
Those two are pretty much universal from business to business. What didn't SWTOR do? They certainly didn't cut costs. Sadly they didn't manage to differentiate themselves enough from the competition either. You can't out-do WoW. Its foolish to even try. Even with a massive budget.
Still, SWTOR probably covered its development costs easily. The only reason why EA's investors would be unhappy is that the game didn't have quite the success they expected. They made profit, but it wasn't nearly as much as they wanted.
I don't think SWTOR has covered their costs, not every dollar of sales goes towards doing that, suppliers, distributors, Lucas Arts....I think they are only around 50-60% covered, and subs are sinking like the titanic....thus the Tortanic refrences people use.....I think they may do good to get their money back within 2-3 years, and maybe going f2p... Future content looks like it may or may not have the 4th pillar, due to layoffs/money, they are in trouble.
Original UO didn't really "work" either, so EQ was a lot more popular.
What made UO really work and attract and retain a much larger populaion? Their peak in subs?
After the Trammel / Felucca split.
Just like EvE with low/null/high sec split.
All FFA PvP all the time, full loot all the time...
Just. Doesn't. Work.
Sandbox devs learn this, the sub-genre might catch on and be a LOT more popular.
I'm still waiting for the PvE focused AAA sandbox MMO with consensual only PvP that doesn't force you to PvP to play the "good parts" of the game.
The catalyst that will enable this change is advanced, layered, complex AI that creates dynamic PvE content in the same fashion that player versus player in sandbox always create dynamic content.
SWG's TEF system was the perfect solution IMO.
It was a VERY good system because it didn't seperate PvP and PvE geographicaly like UO did (and EVE) but it still allowed players to make a choice as to whether or not they PvP'd at all and also choose when to fight and when not to.
And this is pretty much what is happening over at EVE right now with the extension of Hulkageddon.
People storming the forums complaining about getting blown up in hi-sec. There's a serious misconception that pvp in EVE is seperated by sec level, and it's not. Hi-sec isn't concensual pvp, never has been, never will. Hi-sec isn't there to seperate PvP and give PvEers a "safe" place to PvE, it never was and never will.
Trying to draw a comparison between Tramell in UO and hi-sec in EVE is a huge falesy. They're not the smae thing. Tramell was an alienation to many of the players of UO, something that was added a year or two after the release, and something that many people feel is compareable to the SWG NGE.
I don't know were you got the idea that PvE and PvP are seperated by geography in EVE, or that anyone has a "choice" to pvp or not. The only choice you get in EVE is whether or not to take steps to prevent losing your ship or not, unfortunetly there are a lot of people who play EVE and don't understand that. I get the distinct impression you would be one of those people.
What EVE showed is that you DON'T HAVE TO pull a tramell to make a succesfull sandbox. You can have PvP and PvE existing side by side in the entire world and still work. EVE only makes it harder to blow up another player, but doesn't remove that possibility. Most of the games that try to go the sandbox route get this wrong. Either they effectively remove the PvP dynamic (UO tramell, Ryzom), or they fail at providing a place were people can minimize their exposure to pvp (Darkfall, Mortal online, Face of mankind) resulting in a game that becomes all about killing other players.
CCP is the only studio to actually get it right. A sandbox needs to allow for a full range of dynamics, that means providing a multitutde of activities that will appeal to a wide range of playstyels, and pvp is one of those things. That then means you need to provide a way for people to minimize their exposure to pvp, because not everyone wants to always fight other players, and even fewer people want to play an MMO that is nothing more then an online deathmatch.
Lineage 2 is another expample of a game that did it wrong and then did it right. Originally it was very easy to be a PK, even with the penalties. There were ways to prevent losing gear or getting around the gear loss with the aid of others. Over the years NCsoft worked to elminate these loopholes, and today it's actually challenging to be a PK and PK's aren't running rampant. I remember when I could literally no leave the town on talking island for days because there were PK's outside the gates, and they also happend to be some of the highest level players in the game. That was not fun. People complain that NCsoft made it to hard to be a PK, but the truth is it was good for the game. They didn't remove the playstyle, only made it more challenging.
Again, Lineage 2, a FFA pvp game that had gear dropping on death, was more sandbox then themepark, and had near 12m people playing it at one point.
What I liked about SWG's TEF flagging system was that you could be standing in a city, and watch a PvP battle start up, or you could join in if you chose to. If you weren't flagged, it didn't matter cause you couldn't be attacked. It made the place much more lively than the way it is now. As was already said, it was cool that you could basically flag yourself for PVP, then sneak around looking for a fight. It was rather thrilling both to watch, and to do.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
But can you actually make a AAA sandbox MMORPG for 6 million dollars (100k x 60) and sustain and grow/expand said game with 1.5 million a month in subscription revenue?
That sounds like a lot of money, but if the answer is "yes" than why hasn't it been done?
6 million? No. 20 million? Yes, and expect more than 100k subbers too, even at around 200k that still seems low. Remember with the example we're talking atleast 5 years of a loyal playerbase of even lets say 100k. so 100k x15 is 1.5 mill a month aye? x12... 18 mill give or take... times 5 years is 90 million dollars. Thats without box sales, and at a pretty small player base.
I don't care if a company hasn't done it, and you don't need a huge Dev team to actually do it. What i find the problem is investors. That is a risk to take going sandbox. It isn't proven by a super subed game like WoW is for Themepark models. So inverstors that know crap about MMOs and what makes players flock to them, want a proven product... Or so to speak.
I know those numbers are thrown out there and don't consider a lot of costs, but 20 mill is a hefty size for making a game, any game. Let alone one that charges a sub fee.
Fair points all around, cheers.
To continue the debate, say you tell investors you need 20 million to make a game that will bring back 96 million over 5 years.
90 for 5 years of subs at 15 per sub with 100k subs, 6 million for box sales of 100k.
"Profit" then would be 70 million over 5 years, or 14 million a year.
Now, how much does it cost to maintain the servers, add patches/content, pay for the building, bandwidth, salaries, health care, etc. etc. etc.
Let's again use VERY funny numbers and say that you'll spend half of that 14 million per year to keep the game running, or 7 million.
So you are now down to 35 million profit over 5 years after a 20 million dollar investment.
Is that worth it?
If it was a gaurantee, that if I gave you 20 million in 5 years you'd give me back 55 million (my original 20 + 35 in pure profit) I'd say that would be a fair deal, if it were a sure thing and I had 20 million to part with in the first place.
But there are no sure things in gaming and in investing. Especially over 5 years.
Investors would want a ROI on launch day, and continuing profit each quarter after that. That's a good investment.
Meaning if I give you 20 million, I want more than 20 million back after the first quarter of launch not after 5 years.
Which means you'd have to sell a LOT more boxes and retain enough subs to pay me back and give me a profit in 3 months.
So let's say you sell 250k boxes and have 3 months of subs at 200, 150, and 100 respectively.
250k x 60 per box = 15 million
200k x 15 + 150k x 15 + 100k x 15 = 6.75 million
So 21.75 million back after 3 months, which is only 1.75 million in profit after my initial investment of 20 million.
"This deal is getting worse all the time." to quote a famous Gambler.
So I've made 1.75 million in the first 3 months and will make 1.5 million a month in each month after that.
You factor in costs to keep the game running, that 1.75 million becomes $875,000 (again let's assume half) and that 1.5 million per month from 100k subs at 15$/mo becomes $750,000 / month.
Enough to make expansions? Hire more people? Grow the company and business? Create new content and features fast enough to retain that 100k player base and possible expand it?
Now you see how and why the business works as it does...
We are kind of getting at the same thing here... Pretty much, point being is Themepark is the cash grab version of MMOs, get in, get your money, get on to the next big thing, While sandbox relies more so on a longer period of time. Still saying, making a AAA sanbox title i would HOPE would bring more than 100k subs haha.
Still saying though, to LARGE investors, investors that back large AAA themparks, they want a LARGE profit, not a small one, and THAT is why i think we haven't seen a large AAA sandbox. There is a market it for it, but not in the investors eyes. They want initial returns just like you said, Sandbox takes time, but sandboxes tend to keep a loyal playerbase too.
Saying a AAA only has 100k is a small number, but i'm assuming thats the loyal part previous posters were talking about.
Needless to say, i think we're trying to prove the same point to each other But looking at it from different sides.
I am glad to see someone discussing, not raging though, its a rare occurance on these forums
The "Youtube Pro": Someone who watches video's on said subject, and obviously has a full understanding of what is being said about such subject.
Comments
I'm not convinced that is correct.
Let's look at it a different way:
1, people have a lot invested, have friends and have found that this type of game appeals to them
2, Not everyone cares about whether one is a person or s ship. Heck, some people on this very site have stated that they don't care about face sliders and just use some generic look when maknig an avatar. But point well taken and something to consider...
3, there are people who LIKE this type of game. Heck, I like ffa pvp games as well as meta gaming. That's not a deterrent
4, not everyone cares. I actually prefer grindy games over quest based games. Besides the fact that the "grind" for these games allows for grouping to accomplish goals. Some might also think this a plus.
5, there are people who like complicated systems and the ability to tweak every bit of their character. Some would think this a plus.
6, this very well could be a reason that a lot of people haven't tried the game but even if this was EVE via Star Wars I don't think you would get a million plus playing.
So my thought is that there is a lot to EVE that right off the bat appeals to players regardless of the sandbox element. These things won't dissuade but might just "seal the deal".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
With all of the failed MMO games in the past several years, I don't think we should assume these companies have any clue what they are doing. Only a couple of them are even getting the message that the same old themepark games are going to be DOA. If you are game company currently building an MMO and your gameplay is based on the same old themepark mechanics, you might as well close the doors now. The odds of success in the "also-released" MMO market are slim.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
The sandbox crowd may not be massive but we are loyal, long-term customers when the right game comes along.
That's the biggest problem with Themepark games, most companies can't keep up with the content so a lot of players leave after a short period of time.
I'd much rather have 100K loyal customers for 5 years rather than the huge fluctuations in player populations we've seen in themeparks released over the past few years.
That's easy to say, but what are the best elements of both? And who is the target audience? I think you'd pull in a bunch of theme park players, but you'd alienate a lot of sandbox players.
I think you're right, btw, and I think the industry agrees with you. There are a couple examples and I think there's going to be more as time goes on.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This is another great point. Sandbox players are a market that will pay you a sub fee (or whatever) for YEARS, not just a few months after release. We build communities and we make that game our home. I played SWG from release until NGE, and there was a long time when I was paying $45 per month for three paid accounts. A lot of people pay for multiple accounts in EVE as well.
What blows my mind is that people and developers aren't putting this all together. We learned from WoW statistics that only a tiny part of the population cares about end-game raiding. Most people in WoW who stuck around simply re-rolled. Re-rolling isn't good enough to retain people anymore, especially if you do like Bioware did and simply mirror classes and abilities.
You can't keep adding themepark story content at the rate it will be consumed. Other mechanics must start being employed if companies want to keep people interested.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Then why does Outback Steakhouse even exist? By your logic there should only be convenience food available because that is more popular. Do you see how ridiculous your mindset on this is now?
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Two things you will make profit: Either...
Still, SWTOR probably covered its development costs easily. The only reason why EA's investors would be unhappy is that the game didn't have quite the success they expected. They made profit, but it wasn't nearly as much as they wanted.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
But can you actually make a AAA sandbox MMORPG for 6 million dollars (100k x 60) and sustain and grow/expand said game with 1.5 million a month in subscription revenue?
That sounds like a lot of money, but if the answer is "yes" than why hasn't it been done?
I'm sorry but I can't concentrate on what your saying because of your ID Pic. It releases endorphins in my brain
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011
Great point my brother, me too, these themeparks make people rush to level cap in 3 days doing quests, and after, they spend all the time doing the same instances over and over, but they become tired and leave, at least, until a new expansion with more instances. I'm an old school sandbox gamer that is loyal for years if I put my hands in a good sandbox focused in FFA pvp-pk with player-driven politics(I miss the old lineage 1, I'd want to be a korean).
You're so right. Just look at the hype on just this site for up and coming mmo's like AA, The Repopulation and EOC and then compare them to TESO. From day one of it being mentioned and how the game was gonna play, it was already deemed a failure.
You're right in that there isn't as many MMO type gamers looking for traditional sandbox MMORPGs than there gamers looking for a more mainstream "themepark" type of experience.
With that said..."Massive" is sort of relative don't you think? In 2000, Ultima Online set the world record for largest online game....with a subscriber base of around 200,000. The king of the hill in the "Massive" Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games only had 200k subscribers. I think a good Sandbox game could pull that easily.
The reason we haven't seen many good sandbox games released recently is because all the publishers (who formerly funded sandbox games: Sony - EQ, EA - UO) are trying to leverage WOW's success at reaching MILLIONS of gamers (not just thousands) in effort to capitalize on the surge of casual gamers into the MMO space. This has LESS to do with Sandbox MMOs being good or bad, and more to do with basic economics and their drive to drive profits & increase / benefit shareholders.
Also, many of the indie developers that have tried to resurect the spirit of sandbox MMORPGs have failed in that they have tried to compete with the large publishers with only a fraction of the budget. They spend all their money on asthetics and other things the polished games from big publishers do well...and end up falling short when living up to all the features they promise the fan base. It also doesn't help things when you alienate a large portion of your already niche audience by changing up the formula (First Person View, Empty Space only environment, etc)
I have a different out look on the MMO industry than you do. I think the days of AAA publishers spending 10s-100s of millions of dollars over 2-3 years on MMO projects are over. (unless your Blizzard)
Given the relative failure of SWTOR, I think many large AAA game publishers are going to take a long hard look at how productive or effective tieing up that much money over a several year period is given how competitive the MMO market is....in addition to how competitive casual gaming has become (which modern themepark MMOs fall under).
Instead, I see them either pulling back to the console environment, or making smaller budget MMORPG games for smaller audiences....and with this will come the resurgance of sandbox MMORPGs. Don't forget, there are several million MMO gamers that have played WOW for 5+ years...and has played every other new themepark type MMO that has been released since. The reason they keep hoping from game to game isn't because the new games are of poor quality. The reason they keep switching to new games is because they are experiencing "themepark" fatigue. The kill / deliver quest they ran in WOW in 2006 is the same kill / deliver quest they ran in SW:TOR.
The time is right for something new....and when I say new, I don't mean adding wings, creating pubic quests, or voice over acting.
I bet if you did a study on the task-oriented attention span of the population of all people, you would find a correlation to the relational size of casuals versus long term players that would ape the population (if anyone knew it) of theme park versus sand box players.
Yeah, I just said a whole lot of nothing. I'll hit enter anyway what the hell.
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011
6 million? No. 20 million? Yes, and expect more than 100k subbers too, even at around 200k that still seems low. Remember with the example we're talking atleast 5 years of a loyal playerbase of even lets say 100k. so 100k x15 is 1.5 mill a month aye? x12... 18 mill give or take... times 5 years is 90 million dollars. Thats without box sales, and at a pretty small player base.
I don't care if a company hasn't done it, and you don't need a huge Dev team to actually do it. What i find the problem is investors. That is a risk to take going sandbox. It isn't proven by a super subed game like WoW is for Themepark models. So inverstors that know crap about MMOs and what makes players flock to them, want a proven product... Or so to speak.
I know those numbers are thrown out there and don't consider a lot of costs, but 20 mill is a hefty size for making a game, any game. Let alone one that charges a sub fee.
The "Youtube Pro": Someone who watches video's on said subject, and obviously has a full understanding of what is being said about such subject.
I think sandbox games are likely cheaper to develop than themeparks. Just for starters you don't have to have hundreds of hours of voiceover content, and you really don't need to spend as much time on quest building. What you do is start building game machanics that allow the player to make content. Once those mechanics are flshed out, they can be used anywhere, including expansions.
The result of this is emergent gameplay, and this is exactly why so many people are talking about Day Z. For all its indy-developed alpha quality game mod charm, the gameplay mechanics are very simple, yet they allow very complex interactions between the players and the environment. This empowers the players to become their own content. SWG also played like this, and many people loved it.
This is only one example, but it's a faily fun one. SWG eventually put in a quest-building system where players themselves could build quests, complete with NPC's and rewards. SWG had almost nothing for quest content, but some of the most fun quests I did were player-made. That's just one small example, and that's to say nothing of the gameplay that emerges from the imaginations of the players when they are handed an interactive open world.
As for why it hasn't been done yet, well that's easy. Corporations are machines, and their only obligation and goals are to provide the shareholders with profits using as little risk as possible. Don't you think every game company to come along since WoW has gone into investor meetings talking about how brilliant WoW did in the market? Of course they did. Investors will pay for a shot at WoW's success, but they won't pay for niche games yet. Eventually they will get the message that WoW was a fluke, and there will be few winners like it in the future.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
You made my day.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I think I understand where your getting at (I think)......and it's really common sense.
Think about all the different kinds of gamer demographics....and put them in a pie graph. I think it's probably fair to say that there are more people who classify themselves as "gamers" that have to deal with this thing called life (homework, tests, projects, work, friends, kids, wife / husband, pets, hobbies, and a number of other responsibilities) than there are gamers who have the luxury of being able to spend 1-4 hours at a time, 5-7 days a week on a game.
Considering most "themepark" games are geared to streamline the MMO experience (reduce time required to progress, reduce dependency on other players, simplify actions, abilities, choice, more direction, less risk, etc.).....its NO SUPRISE that there are more potential MMO gamers for something like WOW, than there are for a game like EVE.
Why do baristas at Starbucks even exist when lawyers make more money? You think companies should consciously make products & services that make less money compared to more money and you have the gall to say my mindset is ridiculous.
I wonder. The MMO that at the moment has the most chance of being a big success is GW2, yet that one isn't a sandbox MMO at all, but firmly in the themepark style of things. More of a next-gen themepark MMO. If it becomes hugely popular and successful, then what you'll see is a number of big game companies trying to make that kind of themepark MMO's.
Only when a sandbox MMO or sandbox-themepark MMO hybrid becomes hugely successful, especially financially successful, then you'll see more and more companies trying their hand at big sandbox/hybrid development. But there'll be a number of sandbox MMO's and sandbox hybrids already in the upcoming years: WoD, Repopulation, Undead Labs' zombie MMO, AA, to name a few.
Fair points all around, cheers.
To continue the debate, say you tell investors you need 20 million to make a game that will bring back 96 million over 5 years.
90 for 5 years of subs at 15 per sub with 100k subs, 6 million for box sales of 100k.
"Profit" then would be 70 million over 5 years, or 14 million a year.
Now, how much does it cost to maintain the servers, add patches/content, pay for the building, bandwidth, salaries, health care, etc. etc. etc.
Let's again use VERY funny numbers and say that you'll spend half of that 14 million per year to keep the game running, or 7 million.
So you are now down to 35 million profit over 5 years after a 20 million dollar investment.
Is that worth it?
If it was a gaurantee, that if I gave you 20 million in 5 years you'd give me back 55 million (my original 20 + 35 in pure profit) I'd say that would be a fair deal, if it were a sure thing and I had 20 million to part with in the first place.
But there are no sure things in gaming and in investing. Especially over 5 years.
Investors would want a ROI on launch day, and continuing profit each quarter after that. That's a good investment.
Meaning if I give you 20 million, I want more than 20 million back after the first quarter of launch not after 5 years.
Which means you'd have to sell a LOT more boxes and retain enough subs to pay me back and give me a profit in 3 months.
So let's say you sell 250k boxes and have 3 months of subs at 200, 150, and 100 respectively.
250k x 60 per box = 15 million
200k x 15 + 150k x 15 + 100k x 15 = 6.75 million
So 21.75 million back after 3 months, which is only 1.75 million in profit after my initial investment of 20 million.
"This deal is getting worse all the time." to quote a famous Gambler.
So I've made 1.75 million in the first 3 months and will make 1.5 million a month in each month after that.
You factor in costs to keep the game running, that 1.75 million becomes $875,000 (again let's assume half) and that 1.5 million per month from 100k subs at 15$/mo becomes $750,000 / month.
Enough to make expansions? Hire more people? Grow the company and business? Create new content and features fast enough to retain that 100k player base and possibly expand it?
If I'm only making 750,000 a month from my investment of 20 millions dollars, I am going to start initiating cost cutting measures like staff reductions to try and bolster the next quarters numbers so that my investing partners don't panic.
If I'm not a gamer myself, I don't understand that cutting people to save money is NOT how to expand a game and it's player base in the long run, but hey, if I can squeeze out more money for the next 6 months by cutting costs the game can shut down in a year or two and I would have made enough ROI to feel good about myself and keep the companies stock from dipping too low.
Now you see how and why the business works as it does...
And this is pretty much what is happening over at EVE right now with the extension of Hulkageddon.
People storming the forums complaining about getting blown up in hi-sec. There's a serious misconception that pvp in EVE is seperated by sec level, and it's not. Hi-sec isn't concensual pvp, never has been, never will. Hi-sec isn't there to seperate PvP and give PvEers a "safe" place to PvE, it never was and never will.
Trying to draw a comparison between Tramell in UO and hi-sec in EVE is a huge falesy. They're not the smae thing. Tramell was an alienation to many of the players of UO, something that was added a year or two after the release, and something that many people feel is compareable to the SWG NGE.
I don't know were you got the idea that PvE and PvP are seperated by geography in EVE, or that anyone has a "choice" to pvp or not. The only choice you get in EVE is whether or not to take steps to prevent losing your ship or not, unfortunetly there are a lot of people who play EVE and don't understand that. I get the distinct impression you would be one of those people.
What EVE showed is that you DON'T HAVE TO pull a tramell to make a succesfull sandbox. You can have PvP and PvE existing side by side in the entire world and still work. EVE only makes it harder to blow up another player, but doesn't remove that possibility. Most of the games that try to go the sandbox route get this wrong. Either they effectively remove the PvP dynamic (UO tramell, Ryzom), or they fail at providing a place were people can minimize their exposure to pvp (Darkfall, Mortal online, Face of mankind) resulting in a game that becomes all about killing other players.
CCP is the only studio to actually get it right. A sandbox needs to allow for a full range of dynamics, that means providing a multitutde of activities that will appeal to a wide range of playstyels, and pvp is one of those things. That then means you need to provide a way for people to minimize their exposure to pvp, because not everyone wants to always fight other players, and even fewer people want to play an MMO that is nothing more then an online deathmatch.
Lineage 2 is another expample of a game that did it wrong and then did it right. Originally it was very easy to be a PK, even with the penalties. There were ways to prevent losing gear or getting around the gear loss with the aid of others. Over the years NCsoft worked to elminate these loopholes, and today it's actually challenging to be a PK and PK's aren't running rampant. I remember when I could literally no leave the town on talking island for days because there were PK's outside the gates, and they also happend to be some of the highest level players in the game. That was not fun. People complain that NCsoft made it to hard to be a PK, but the truth is it was good for the game. They didn't remove the playstyle, only made it more challenging.
Again, Lineage 2, a FFA pvp game that had gear dropping on death, was more sandbox then themepark, and had near 12m people playing it at one point.
I agree with you. I think it's more likely that one of these indy games will finally hit the mark for a fun sandbox and will draw some attention. The only big-budget sandbox-hybrid game out there now is ArchAge. I'm hoping they get a publisher soon so we can see how it does eventually. It has a lot of interest on this website, that's for sure. There are some rumors of a publisher picking it up for the West floating around now. I hope so.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
I don't think SWTOR has covered their costs, not every dollar of sales goes towards doing that, suppliers, distributors, Lucas Arts....I think they are only around 50-60% covered, and subs are sinking like the titanic....thus the Tortanic refrences people use.....I think they may do good to get their money back within 2-3 years, and maybe going f2p... Future content looks like it may or may not have the 4th pillar, due to layoffs/money, they are in trouble.
What I liked about SWG's TEF flagging system was that you could be standing in a city, and watch a PvP battle start up, or you could join in if you chose to. If you weren't flagged, it didn't matter cause you couldn't be attacked. It made the place much more lively than the way it is now. As was already said, it was cool that you could basically flag yourself for PVP, then sneak around looking for a fight. It was rather thrilling both to watch, and to do.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
We are kind of getting at the same thing here... Pretty much, point being is Themepark is the cash grab version of MMOs, get in, get your money, get on to the next big thing, While sandbox relies more so on a longer period of time. Still saying, making a AAA sanbox title i would HOPE would bring more than 100k subs haha.
Still saying though, to LARGE investors, investors that back large AAA themparks, they want a LARGE profit, not a small one, and THAT is why i think we haven't seen a large AAA sandbox. There is a market it for it, but not in the investors eyes. They want initial returns just like you said, Sandbox takes time, but sandboxes tend to keep a loyal playerbase too.
Saying a AAA only has 100k is a small number, but i'm assuming thats the loyal part previous posters were talking about.
Needless to say, i think we're trying to prove the same point to each other
But looking at it from different sides.
I am glad to see someone discussing, not raging though, its a rare occurance on these forums
The "Youtube Pro": Someone who watches video's on said subject, and obviously has a full understanding of what is being said about such subject.