Originally posted by Ikonoclastia I thinks its stretching a little to say mods are related to the classification of a sandbox game. An average gamer doesnt create mods for games, the entirety of their experience is influenced by their ingame experience, any mod is entirely transparent to the user and each mod is in itself a different game. As an example I could create a mod of a game that increased the level range for that game. If the game was a themepark game and I invited some people with no knowledge of the previous unmodded game to their mind it would still be a themepark game. If instead I created a different mod which allowed players to take over parts of the game, economy, to restrict access of others players to resources and features then the previous game which was themepark is now sandbox. Not because its modded but because it allows players to dictate the gameplay.
If we really want to get technical, 'Mods' can mean different games actually.
NFS:On the Run was built on the Frostbyte engine, the same engine that powers Battlefield3.
You can technically say that NFS: OTR is a BF3 'mod'.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Just think about the concept of an actual themepark for a moment, they are full of rides & things to do, but could you enjoy spending an entire week in one, a month ?, a year ?
Just think about the concept of an actual sandbox for a moment. They are full of sand and you can create whatever you want, but could you enjoy spending an entire week in one? A month? A year?
I get so tired of this misconception........... have you ever tried building a castle in a sandbox? Never worked out to well without water which is why most people reserved building sand castles on the beach.
The pull of the sandbox was that it offered more possibilities than say a slide a swing or a seesaw. The swing, seesaw and the slide offer few predetermined activities while the sandbox activities were limited only by your imagination. Take your construction toys out and play builder, GI Joes and play war, burry stuff, play pirates and look for burried treasure, etc.
Why you young guys want to take a term we used and turn it into something that doesn't even make sense. I mean sure, if we were reffering to a beach you might have a point..... but again.... try building anything in the sandboxes we had growing up lol.
You mean you never took water to your sandbox ? mine was full of bricking sand (the same kind of sand kind used to make big sand sculptures) & we used to wet it and build all kinds of things, we even had a go at making something like mos-eisley with its domed buildings.
In any case the term sandbox is as good a fit as any for comparing the two types of gameplay.
I prefer sandbox MMOs. I also prefer solo/casual gameplay in such. I absolutely loathe PvP and despise forced grouping to progress. I am sick of how new MMOs seem to be tainted with such a narrow-minded view of social interraction. I miss Ultima Online - I just cannot stand 2D games anymore after having been exposed to the wonders of 3D gaming. UO should have evolved to UX:O instead of cancelling it.
Hopefully one day, UO will get with the times and go truly 3D. If it ever should, I would return in a heart-beat. Played it from 1997-2004. For now, here's to hoping Neverwinter fills the void for me.
As for the usage of "sandbox" - too many seem to have forgotten (or didn't have a sandbox) what their sandbox was like when they were a wee little lad or lassy. For me, my sandbox was my own little world that went on for gagiliions of miles and miles and had everything from the G.I.Joe fortress to Barbie's Torture Tower to the He-Man Castle and even Skeletor's Base. It had tunnels that would suck you into the hollow earth where dinosaurs would eat you (they preferred barbie meat). When winter fell, magical tunnels under the miles of ice and snow would appear, connecting the worlds of my "Sandbox" to that of those around the Big Oak Tree (I also had awesome, sandbox-like, fort systems and toys set up around a massive Oak Tree about 20 feet away). I could go anywhere, be anyone, do anything in my own little sandbox that was as big as the universe.
Hence the term, "Like the sandbox I had when I was growing up."
Sure take the key word out of context and use it just as "Sandbox" and it easily looses the roots of it's original meaning.
The debate about definition of sandbox, and the extent to which something is a sandbox appears to me to be a massive distraction. (So allow me to distract myself for a second) In a broad sense I suppose it alludes to the extent of which players can change or manipulate the gameworld or landscape. Some people seem to yearn for a game where ANYTHING is possible. I dont quite get this.
In a literal sense, sandboxes (boxes with sand) have parimeters. The edges of the box. Or that fact that it only has sand in it. As malleable as sand can be, i'm no alchemist.
A complete sandbox would have no parimeters. I dont believe anyone really wants this. I think its far more a question of WHAT parimeters.
Therefore it seems more constructive to discuss the extent of, or indeed WHICH 'sandboxy elements' (tm), we would want in a game. Rather than this need to define exactly what a sandbox is, and whether a game is one.
the problem with sandbox is that seens UO release to 2012 all the sandbox games that have come out have all been FFA Full Loot in which the new gen of people playing post-WOW don't like and they keep using the same formula as UO which have to say the following quote below.
" SANDBOX dev stop using goddam same formula as UO, this is not the 1990s but the 2010 "
the problem with sandbox is that seens UO release to 2012 all the sandbox games that have come out have all been FFA Full Loot in which the new gen of people playing post-WOW don't like and they keep using the same formula as UO
I wouldn't say that -all- of them follow the early UO model. Even UO saw the error of its ways fairly early in the game. I think the more common case is when smaller developers try to harness what early UO had. When Trammel opened the game became almost too safe. The excitement surrounding being in the wilderness and the danger of PKs was lost. Believe it or not, the loss of that danger made the world less interesting.
Almost all recent mainstream MMOs address the issue with PvP or Faction mechanics. Some of them are even pretty good at it.
This Explanation of Sandbox is a pretty write up on elements that sandboxes are and are not. Clarified quite a lot for me in terms of EvE vs WoW being Sandbox vs Theme Park.
I think the most crucial part is the end game, in EvE, when I left I was a solo war deccer and I felt that I had reached the pinnacle of EvE, that I was very successful and at my idea of EvE's endgame. In EvE others would not consider what I did as anything near success or end game. I think thats an important distinction.
In WoW the only time you are considered at end game and a success would be when you are max level, in a raid guild, in highest tier gear and doing the highst dungeons. Theres only one end goal (apart from the odd rare RP guild that considers talking fluently in Orcish on teamspeak the ultimate success).
I don't believe TOR has come ANYWHERE CLOSE to recouping it's development costs yet. Some back of the envelope math easly tells me that. More importantly, simply knowing something about expectations in the type of offering it is. With an SaaS business model (that's what MMO's are essentialy) the vast majority of your costs are sunk up front in terms of Development. Operating expenses are significant but still minor compared to that . You are EXTATIC if you recoup your Develpment Costs in the first year of business. It's an entirely different proposition then the boxed sales software business
Even if TOR had ZERO operating costs and made 100% of it's GROSS in Proffit...some back of the envelope math tells me they wouldn't have recouped thier initial Develpment investment yet.
Lets say on average the gross purchase cost of a TOR unit was $60....and that includes the first 30 days of play. I believe they sold somewhere around 2 million units.....that's $120 million GROSS.
They have, coming up now on 5 months worth of sub fees (remember 1st month is included in the initial sale). Lets say they averaged about 1.5 million subs (and I think that's generous) at $15 per month for 5 months. By my math thats around another $112 million Gross.
That puts us in at around $230 million GROSS. You seriously think TOR's Dev budget was significantly less then 200 million?
Again we're talking GROSS here....that's with ZERO Operating costs, ZERO percent of the proffits going to Lucas for the IP, ZERO percent of the proffits going to wholesalerrs/retailers/distributers for boxed sales. ZERO costs for production of packaging, etc..... ZERO costs for marketing.
You really think they've recouped thier initial investment already?
What TOR cost was estimated (by a third party source) around $150-200 million. I can't remember what is included in that. Still, even your calculations exceed the most pessimistic estimates easy.
Yes, I really think they've recouped their initial investment.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
The debate about definition of sandbox, and the extent to which something is a sandbox appears to me to be a massive distraction. (So allow me to distract myself for a second) In a broad sense I suppose it alludes to the extent of which players can change or manipulate the gameworld or landscape. Some people seem to yearn for a game where ANYTHING is possible. I dont quite get this.
In a literal sense, sandboxes (boxes with sand) have parimeters. The edges of the box. Or that fact that it only has sand in it. As malleable as sand can be, i'm no alchemist.
A complete sandbox would have no parimeters. I dont believe anyone really wants this. I think its far more a question of WHAT parimeters.
Therefore it seems more constructive to discuss the extent of, or indeed WHICH 'sandboxy elements' (tm), we would want in a game. Rather than this need to define exactly what a sandbox is, and whether a game is one.
That's common sense.
We could easily say, people say they want more choice as games evolve, and others say they want less choice, but better more accessable rewards. They usually refer to it as fun gameplay without downtime.
Sandbox is reading the book, themepark is watching the movie. The only difference is the level of immersion. The level of immersion is decided by the greater good agency i think.
I don't believe TOR has come ANYWHERE CLOSE to recouping it's development costs yet. Some back of the envelope math easly tells me that. More importantly, simply knowing something about expectations in the type of offering it is. With an SaaS business model (that's what MMO's are essentialy) the vast majority of your costs are sunk up front in terms of Development. Operating expenses are significant but still minor compared to that . You are EXTATIC if you recoup your Develpment Costs in the first year of business. It's an entirely different proposition then the boxed sales software business
Even if TOR had ZERO operating costs and made 100% of it's GROSS in Proffit...some back of the envelope math tells me they wouldn't have recouped thier initial Develpment investment yet.
Lets say on average the gross purchase cost of a TOR unit was $60....and that includes the first 30 days of play. I believe they sold somewhere around 2 million units.....that's $120 million GROSS.
They have, coming up now on 5 months worth of sub fees (remember 1st month is included in the initial sale). Lets say they averaged about 1.5 million subs (and I think that's generous) at $15 per month for 5 months. By my math thats around another $112 million Gross.
That puts us in at around $230 million GROSS. You seriously think TOR's Dev budget was significantly less then 200 million?
Again we're talking GROSS here....that's with ZERO Operating costs, ZERO percent of the proffits going to Lucas for the IP, ZERO percent of the proffits going to wholesalerrs/retailers/distributers for boxed sales. ZERO costs for production of packaging, etc..... ZERO costs for marketing.
You really think they've recouped thier initial investment already?
What TOR cost was estimated (by a third party source) around $150-200 million. I can't remember what is included in that. Still, even your calculations exceed the most pessimistic estimates easy.
Yes, I really think they've recouped their initial investment.
I estimated TOR costing 20 million to make. I think they recouped their initial investment as well. But im not a paid expert.
Well only Eve online is good sandbox and rest was crap so do not wonder why they failed with huge population. Just look at Mortal Online, nice world and good idea but crappy combat and full of bugs. One day one sandbox game will make revolution
Since we are discussing Sandboxes and what they are or arent, lets look at Themeparks for a sec.
IMO what we call "Themeparks" now arent really themeparks at all.
In a themepark like Disney World as long as I pay my way in I can go and experience the park as I want. Sure there are some rides with height/age restrictions, but as long as I meet those I can go. I can even go and experience the rides that would be more for kids (lower levels) and still have just as much fun as I can on a more adult (max level) ride.
Point is I have a choice on when and where to go and what I want to do.
Modern Themepark games are more like Assembly Lines in Factories. You start with your basic template and from 1 - 50 you follow a very structured conveyor belt of quests to build your character until you finish them. You get the same basic stock part as every other model. Once complete,there is never a reason or point in returning to the Factory. It cant do anything more for you. Hell, most workers dont even remember building you. At which point you leave the Factory to begin your purpose which is to Raid, Battleground PvP and grind for better parts to Mod your character.
Your choice here beyond Factory Stock is some different paintjobs and a few upgrades and accessories
Tried: EQ2 - AC - EU - HZ - TR - MxO - TTO - WURM - SL - VG:SoH - PotBS - PS - AoC - WAR - DDO - SWTOR Played: UO - EQ1 - AO - DAoC - NC - CoH/CoV - SWG - WoW - EVE - AA - LotRO - DFO - STO - FE - MO - RIFT Playing: Skyrim Following: The Repopulation I want a Virtual World, not just a Game. ITS TOO HARD! - Matt Firor (ZeniMax)
I don't believe TOR has come ANYWHERE CLOSE to recouping it's development costs yet. Some back of the envelope math easly tells me that. More importantly, simply knowing something about expectations in the type of offering it is. With an SaaS business model (that's what MMO's are essentialy) the vast majority of your costs are sunk up front in terms of Development. Operating expenses are significant but still minor compared to that . You are EXTATIC if you recoup your Develpment Costs in the first year of business. It's an entirely different proposition then the boxed sales software business
Even if TOR had ZERO operating costs and made 100% of it's GROSS in Proffit...some back of the envelope math tells me they wouldn't have recouped thier initial Develpment investment yet.
Lets say on average the gross purchase cost of a TOR unit was $60....and that includes the first 30 days of play. I believe they sold somewhere around 2 million units.....that's $120 million GROSS.
They have, coming up now on 5 months worth of sub fees (remember 1st month is included in the initial sale). Lets say they averaged about 1.5 million subs (and I think that's generous) at $15 per month for 5 months. By my math thats around another $112 million Gross.
That puts us in at around $230 million GROSS. You seriously think TOR's Dev budget was significantly less then 200 million?
Again we're talking GROSS here....that's with ZERO Operating costs, ZERO percent of the proffits going to Lucas for the IP, ZERO percent of the proffits going to wholesalerrs/retailers/distributers for boxed sales. ZERO costs for production of packaging, etc..... ZERO costs for marketing.
You really think they've recouped thier initial investment already?
What TOR cost was estimated (by a third party source) around $150-200 million. I can't remember what is included in that. Still, even your calculations exceed the most pessimistic estimates easy.
Yes, I really think they've recouped their initial investment.
I estimated TOR costing 20 million to make. I think they recouped their initial investment as well. But im not a paid expert.
You guys are amazing! It is about sandbox and you are all the time on TOR or GW2.
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 are full of circular logic. You are blurring the lines between poor quality development of sandbox games with the number of people who want a good one. When you cut down to it, you are arguing that since there aren't any high quality sandbox games available, then it must be because nobody wants to play them. Which is a bit ridiculous. Just look at ArchAge and The Repopulation. Both are hightly anticipated. Just because a game was developed poorly doesn't mean there isn't a group of people saying "If only it wasn't so poorly developed, I'd play it"
What I find ironic. Is that the 2 highest populated themeparks out are currently bleeding customers so fast that both companies are laying off people. and both games are in a downward spiral. after these two, what are the populations of the next best theme parks?
and then there is your last statelment. You say that like it doesn't apply to Sandboxes. But that just goes back to what I said earlier.
Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean its worth sharing, buddy.
"It appears, based on discussions with industry executives and financial analysts, that BioWare and Electronic Arts have spent somewhere between $125 million and $200 million making the Old Republic"
That's your first source. c'mon.
At least my opinion is free:) At least I have my own opinion. Your opinion of my comment would hold more weight if you used your own words too:)
I don't believe TOR has come ANYWHERE CLOSE to recouping it's development costs yet. Some back of the envelope math easly tells me that. More importantly, simply knowing something about expectations in the type of offering it is. With an SaaS business model (that's what MMO's are essentialy) the vast majority of your costs are sunk up front in terms of Development. Operating expenses are significant but still minor compared to that . You are EXTATIC if you recoup your Develpment Costs in the first year of business. It's an entirely different proposition then the boxed sales software business
Even if TOR had ZERO operating costs and made 100% of it's GROSS in Proffit...some back of the envelope math tells me they wouldn't have recouped thier initial Develpment investment yet.
Lets say on average the gross purchase cost of a TOR unit was $60....and that includes the first 30 days of play. I believe they sold somewhere around 2 million units.....that's $120 million GROSS.
They have, coming up now on 5 months worth of sub fees (remember 1st month is included in the initial sale). Lets say they averaged about 1.5 million subs (and I think that's generous) at $15 per month for 5 months. By my math thats around another $112 million Gross.
That puts us in at around $230 million GROSS. You seriously think TOR's Dev budget was significantly less then 200 million?
Again we're talking GROSS here....that's with ZERO Operating costs, ZERO percent of the proffits going to Lucas for the IP, ZERO percent of the proffits going to wholesalerrs/retailers/distributers for boxed sales. ZERO costs for production of packaging, etc..... ZERO costs for marketing.
You really think they've recouped thier initial investment already?
What TOR cost was estimated (by a third party source) around $150-200 million. I can't remember what is included in that. Still, even your calculations exceed the most pessimistic estimates easy.
Yes, I really think they've recouped their initial investment.
I estimated TOR costing 20 million to make. I think they recouped their initial investment as well. But im not a paid expert.
You guys are amazing! It is about sandbox and you are all the time on TOR or GW2.
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.
Its quiet simple why devs don't make sandbox games. Even though the crowd is massive, the mainstream gamer is represented with much more. And publishers only care for the mainstream gamer and not for the niche gamer. You can earn more money on mainstreamers and mainstreamers dislike everything that isn't an exact copy of something they already known. Mainstream gamers need their hands holded, they wouldn't play a sandbox game for the simple fact that a sandbox game doesn't tell you where to go and gives you a giant ass arrow pointing the way and a huge circle on the map saying "GO THERE FOR MOB X!".
Its very simple, the sandbox crowd is massive, but outnumbered by the mainstream gamer. As in with every genre. With shooters its all CoD this, Battlefield that. While there is a massive ammount of gamers for Arma and the old rainbow six games, you know the realistic games where you have think and plan ahead. But unlike a MMORPG a shooter is rather cheap to make...or rather a MMO is the most expensive genre to make there for you won't see a publisher invest in a sandbox knowing they can earn so much more if they make yet another theme park wanna be WoW game and change a thing or two here and there. And if you don't make enough money you lost a huge deal when a MMORPG fails. With a shooter you lose much less.
And what is massive in your eyes anyway? Cause i dare to bet that the sandbox crowd is still represented by millions of gamers, but there are so much more millions of mainstream gamers.
Also i see people saying the sandboxers should mention one good sandbox game after EVE and SWG. But i guess they haven't heard of quallity over Quantity hm? How many great theme park games have there been after WoW? That where as succesfull? AoC, failed gone f2p, Aion, failed, gone f2p, Warhammer online, failed gone f2p, SWToR, not a huge succes, etc. And don't come with "But GW2 gonna blow it all away" cause GW2 isn't released yet and first lets see how that game goes for the first year. And when do you call it a succes? For a niche game you don't need the millions of accounts to be a succes. And there are thousands of F2P games that have millions of accounts but i wouldn't call them a succes either.
"People still love themeparks - they just don't like shitty games, thats all" That is just a personal opinion. I don't like shitty games either. And to be honest i can have as much fun in a theme park as in sandbox. If a game is good a game is good no mather what kind of game it is. But i guess in your eyes its either you support one or the other. And everything you don't like is shitty and are for nerds blabla. Maybe you need to get educated in what it means to have personal taste and such. And just because you don't like it doesn't make something shit or less desireable. Cause let me tell you one thing. 10 years ago, when the mainstream gamer didn't excist yet, back than playing games was concidered something for only nerd. Now the same guys who used to call me a nerd for playing videogames spend way more time in games like CoD than i do in my games. But now gaming is a cool thing. So 10 years ago you probally would have said the same thing that the massive crowd for videogames where a myth as well cause football had more players.
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.
To much personal feeling and fail logic to even take your posting seriously.
And what is massive in your eyes anyway? Cause i dare to bet that the sandbox crowd is still represented by millions of gamers, but there are so much more millions of mainstream gamers.
Also i see people saying the sandboxers should mention one good sandbox game after EVE and SWG. But i guess they haven't heard of quallity over Quantity hm? How many great theme park games have there been after WoW? That where as succesfull? AoC, failed gone f2p, Aion, failed, gone f2p, Warhammer online, failed gone f2p, SWToR, not a huge succes, etc. And don't come with "But GW2 gonna blow it all away" cause GW2 isn't released yet and first lets see how that game goes for the first year. And when do you call it a succes? For a niche game you don't need the millions of accounts to be a succes. And there are thousands of F2P games that have millions of accounts but i wouldn't call them a succes either.
AoC/Aion/Lotro/DDO are all huge success btw.
AoC's revenue (once they switched to F2P) jumped by 400% and LoTRO/DDO are raking in tons of revenue.
They all made money for the company so even financially they were successful.
These 'millions' of 'MMO Sandbox' gamers is a myth for a lot of investors. There is no actual data to support it at all.
Largest sandbox MMO is EVE with 400-500k subs. That's not 'millions' as 'millions' are not buying the sandbox MMO.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
And what is massive in your eyes anyway? Cause i dare to bet that the sandbox crowd is still represented by millions of gamers, but there are so much more millions of mainstream gamers.
Also i see people saying the sandboxers should mention one good sandbox game after EVE and SWG. But i guess they haven't heard of quallity over Quantity hm? How many great theme park games have there been after WoW? That where as succesfull? AoC, failed gone f2p, Aion, failed, gone f2p, Warhammer online, failed gone f2p, SWToR, not a huge succes, etc. And don't come with "But GW2 gonna blow it all away" cause GW2 isn't released yet and first lets see how that game goes for the first year. And when do you call it a succes? For a niche game you don't need the millions of accounts to be a succes. And there are thousands of F2P games that have millions of accounts but i wouldn't call them a succes either.
AoC/Aion/Lotro/DDO are all huge success btw.
AoC's revenue (once they switched to F2P) jumped by 400% and LoTRO/DDO are raking in tons of revenue.
They all made money for the company so even financially they were successful.
These 'millions' of 'MMO Sandbox' gamers is a myth for a lot of investors. There is no actual data to support it at all.
Largest sandbox MMO is EVE with 400-500k subs. That's not 'millions' as 'millions' are not buying the sandbox MMO.
Profit is not purely based on subscriber numbers. Profit is based on expenditure vs income. While its obviously profitable to have 10 million subscribers it might also be profitable to have 500k subscribers.
Comments
If we really want to get technical, 'Mods' can mean different games actually.
NFS:On the Run was built on the Frostbyte engine, the same engine that powers Battlefield3.
You can technically say that NFS: OTR is a BF3 'mod'.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
You mean you never took water to your sandbox ? mine was full of bricking sand (the same kind of sand kind used to make big sand sculptures) & we used to wet it and build all kinds of things, we even had a go at making something like mos-eisley with its domed buildings.
In any case the term sandbox is as good a fit as any for comparing the two types of gameplay.
I prefer sandbox MMOs. I also prefer solo/casual gameplay in such. I absolutely loathe PvP and despise forced grouping to progress. I am sick of how new MMOs seem to be tainted with such a narrow-minded view of social interraction. I miss Ultima Online - I just cannot stand 2D games anymore after having been exposed to the wonders of 3D gaming. UO should have evolved to UX:O instead of cancelling it.
Hopefully one day, UO will get with the times and go truly 3D. If it ever should, I would return in a heart-beat. Played it from 1997-2004. For now, here's to hoping Neverwinter fills the void for me.
~Ra Hallowel
As for the usage of "sandbox" - too many seem to have forgotten (or didn't have a sandbox) what their sandbox was like when they were a wee little lad or lassy. For me, my sandbox was my own little world that went on for gagiliions of miles and miles and had everything from the G.I.Joe fortress to Barbie's Torture Tower to the He-Man Castle and even Skeletor's Base. It had tunnels that would suck you into the hollow earth where dinosaurs would eat you (they preferred barbie meat). When winter fell, magical tunnels under the miles of ice and snow would appear, connecting the worlds of my "Sandbox" to that of those around the Big Oak Tree (I also had awesome, sandbox-like, fort systems and toys set up around a massive Oak Tree about 20 feet away). I could go anywhere, be anyone, do anything in my own little sandbox that was as big as the universe.
Hence the term, "Like the sandbox I had when I was growing up."
Sure take the key word out of context and use it just as "Sandbox" and it easily looses the roots of it's original meaning.
~Ra Hallowel
The debate about definition of sandbox, and the extent to which something is a sandbox appears to me to be a massive distraction. (So allow me to distract myself for a second) In a broad sense I suppose it alludes to the extent of which players can change or manipulate the gameworld or landscape. Some people seem to yearn for a game where ANYTHING is possible. I dont quite get this.
In a literal sense, sandboxes (boxes with sand) have parimeters. The edges of the box. Or that fact that it only has sand in it. As malleable as sand can be, i'm no alchemist.
A complete sandbox would have no parimeters. I dont believe anyone really wants this. I think its far more a question of WHAT parimeters.
Therefore it seems more constructive to discuss the extent of, or indeed WHICH 'sandboxy elements' (tm), we would want in a game. Rather than this need to define exactly what a sandbox is, and whether a game is one.
the problem with sandbox is that seens UO release to 2012 all the sandbox games that have come out have all been FFA Full Loot in which the new gen of people playing post-WOW don't like and they keep using the same formula as UO which have to say the following quote below.
" SANDBOX dev stop using goddam same formula as UO, this is not the 1990s but the 2010 "
I wouldn't say that -all- of them follow the early UO model. Even UO saw the error of its ways fairly early in the game. I think the more common case is when smaller developers try to harness what early UO had. When Trammel opened the game became almost too safe. The excitement surrounding being in the wilderness and the danger of PKs was lost. Believe it or not, the loss of that danger made the world less interesting.
Almost all recent mainstream MMOs address the issue with PvP or Faction mechanics. Some of them are even pretty good at it.
This Explanation of Sandbox is a pretty write up on elements that sandboxes are and are not. Clarified quite a lot for me in terms of EvE vs WoW being Sandbox vs Theme Park.
I think the most crucial part is the end game, in EvE, when I left I was a solo war deccer and I felt that I had reached the pinnacle of EvE, that I was very successful and at my idea of EvE's endgame. In EvE others would not consider what I did as anything near success or end game. I think thats an important distinction.
In WoW the only time you are considered at end game and a success would be when you are max level, in a raid guild, in highest tier gear and doing the highst dungeons. Theres only one end goal (apart from the odd rare RP guild that considers talking fluently in Orcish on teamspeak the ultimate success).
What TOR cost was estimated (by a third party source) around $150-200 million. I can't remember what is included in that. Still, even your calculations exceed the most pessimistic estimates easy.
Yes, I really think they've recouped their initial investment.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
That's common sense.
We could easily say, people say they want more choice as games evolve, and others say they want less choice, but better more accessable rewards. They usually refer to it as fun gameplay without downtime.
Sandbox is reading the book, themepark is watching the movie. The only difference is the level of immersion. The level of immersion is decided by the greater good agency i think.
I estimated TOR costing 20 million to make. I think they recouped their initial investment as well. But im not a paid expert.
Well only Eve online is good sandbox and rest was crap so do not wonder why they failed with huge population. Just look at Mortal Online, nice world and good idea but crappy combat and full of bugs. One day one sandbox game will make revolution
Since we are discussing Sandboxes and what they are or arent, lets look at Themeparks for a sec.
IMO what we call "Themeparks" now arent really themeparks at all.
In a themepark like Disney World as long as I pay my way in I can go and experience the park as I want. Sure there are some rides with height/age restrictions, but as long as I meet those I can go. I can even go and experience the rides that would be more for kids (lower levels) and still have just as much fun as I can on a more adult (max level) ride.
Point is I have a choice on when and where to go and what I want to do.
Modern Themepark games are more like Assembly Lines in Factories. You start with your basic template and from 1 - 50 you follow a very structured conveyor belt of quests to build your character until you finish them. You get the same basic stock part as every other model. Once complete,there is never a reason or point in returning to the Factory. It cant do anything more for you. Hell, most workers dont even remember building you. At which point you leave the Factory to begin your purpose which is to Raid, Battleground PvP and grind for better parts to Mod your character.
Your choice here beyond Factory Stock is some different paintjobs and a few upgrades and accessories
Tried: EQ2 - AC - EU - HZ - TR - MxO - TTO - WURM - SL - VG:SoH - PotBS - PS - AoC - WAR - DDO - SWTOR
Played: UO - EQ1 - AO - DAoC - NC - CoH/CoV - SWG - WoW - EVE - AA - LotRO - DFO - STO - FE - MO - RIFT
Playing: Skyrim
Following: The Repopulation
I want a Virtual World, not just a Game.
ITS TOO HARD! - Matt Firor (ZeniMax)
You guys are amazing! It is about sandbox and you are all the time on TOR or GW2.
The New York Times source
Los Angeles Times source
Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean its worth sharing, buddy.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
who said there is a massive sand box crowd? I'm confused.
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011
If you want your freedom back go support their Kickstarter and let the investors know we want change...
Stand for something or fall for nothing...
"It would be awesome if you could duel your companion. Then you could solo pvp".--Thanes
You are full of circular logic. You are blurring the lines between poor quality development of sandbox games with the number of people who want a good one. When you cut down to it, you are arguing that since there aren't any high quality sandbox games available, then it must be because nobody wants to play them. Which is a bit ridiculous. Just look at ArchAge and The Repopulation. Both are hightly anticipated. Just because a game was developed poorly doesn't mean there isn't a group of people saying "If only it wasn't so poorly developed, I'd play it"
What I find ironic. Is that the 2 highest populated themeparks out are currently bleeding customers so fast that both companies are laying off people. and both games are in a downward spiral. after these two, what are the populations of the next best theme parks?
and then there is your last statelment. You say that like it doesn't apply to Sandboxes. But that just goes back to what I said earlier.
"It would be awesome if you could duel your companion. Then you could solo pvp".--Thanes
"It appears, based on discussions with industry executives and financial analysts, that BioWare and Electronic Arts have spent somewhere between $125 million and $200 million making the Old Republic"
That's your first source. c'mon.
At least my opinion is free:) At least I have my own opinion. Your opinion of my comment would hold more weight if you used your own words too:)
Thank you! you're quite amazing as well.
Its quiet simple why devs don't make sandbox games. Even though the crowd is massive, the mainstream gamer is represented with much more. And publishers only care for the mainstream gamer and not for the niche gamer. You can earn more money on mainstreamers and mainstreamers dislike everything that isn't an exact copy of something they already known. Mainstream gamers need their hands holded, they wouldn't play a sandbox game for the simple fact that a sandbox game doesn't tell you where to go and gives you a giant ass arrow pointing the way and a huge circle on the map saying "GO THERE FOR MOB X!".
Its very simple, the sandbox crowd is massive, but outnumbered by the mainstream gamer. As in with every genre. With shooters its all CoD this, Battlefield that. While there is a massive ammount of gamers for Arma and the old rainbow six games, you know the realistic games where you have think and plan ahead. But unlike a MMORPG a shooter is rather cheap to make...or rather a MMO is the most expensive genre to make there for you won't see a publisher invest in a sandbox knowing they can earn so much more if they make yet another theme park wanna be WoW game and change a thing or two here and there. And if you don't make enough money you lost a huge deal when a MMORPG fails. With a shooter you lose much less.
And what is massive in your eyes anyway? Cause i dare to bet that the sandbox crowd is still represented by millions of gamers, but there are so much more millions of mainstream gamers.
Also i see people saying the sandboxers should mention one good sandbox game after EVE and SWG. But i guess they haven't heard of quallity over Quantity hm? How many great theme park games have there been after WoW? That where as succesfull? AoC, failed gone f2p, Aion, failed, gone f2p, Warhammer online, failed gone f2p, SWToR, not a huge succes, etc. And don't come with "But GW2 gonna blow it all away" cause GW2 isn't released yet and first lets see how that game goes for the first year. And when do you call it a succes? For a niche game you don't need the millions of accounts to be a succes. And there are thousands of F2P games that have millions of accounts but i wouldn't call them a succes either.
"People still love themeparks - they just don't like shitty games, thats all" That is just a personal opinion. I don't like shitty games either. And to be honest i can have as much fun in a theme park as in sandbox. If a game is good a game is good no mather what kind of game it is. But i guess in your eyes its either you support one or the other. And everything you don't like is shitty and are for nerds blabla. Maybe you need to get educated in what it means to have personal taste and such. And just because you don't like it doesn't make something shit or less desireable. Cause let me tell you one thing. 10 years ago, when the mainstream gamer didn't excist yet, back than playing games was concidered something for only nerd. Now the same guys who used to call me a nerd for playing videogames spend way more time in games like CoD than i do in my games. But now gaming is a cool thing. So 10 years ago you probally would have said the same thing that the massive crowd for videogames where a myth as well cause football had more players.
To much personal feeling and fail logic to even take your posting seriously.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
AoC/Aion/Lotro/DDO are all huge success btw.
AoC's revenue (once they switched to F2P) jumped by 400% and LoTRO/DDO are raking in tons of revenue.
They all made money for the company so even financially they were successful.
These 'millions' of 'MMO Sandbox' gamers is a myth for a lot of investors. There is no actual data to support it at all.
Largest sandbox MMO is EVE with 400-500k subs. That's not 'millions' as 'millions' are not buying the sandbox MMO.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Profit is not purely based on subscriber numbers. Profit is based on expenditure vs income. While its obviously profitable to have 10 million subscribers it might also be profitable to have 500k subscribers.