I have been thinking the exact same thing. To me it's the content locusts who have ZERO patience and know nothing about the satisfaction one gets from earning things (gear, lvl, etc.). People who take time to smell the roses appreciate everything they earn so much more.
The hyper-casuals run from start to finish as fast as they can and don't even appreciate all a MMORPG has to offer. My first toon took me like 4 or 5 months to level, and I love every minute of it and felt oh so accomplished when I finally made it to max lvl. I miss those days so much, and I miss the world full of people, hangin out in chat, making friends running a dungeon in a group for the first time... sheer joy!
Unfortunately, the casuals also have the loudest voice and that, it seems, it what the developers listen to... the loudest voice.
Serious Gamers Unite!
How does a hyper casual, rush to the end. By definition "casual" doesn't really rush to anything. It sounds like you're really hung up on the word casual but from what you're saying.....you are one.
Developers listen to money....nothing else.
Because hyper-casuals steer clear of any challenges, try once, maybe twice, then fail and cry that it's too hard. They want everything handed to them without putting in the work, otherwise it's "Boo Hoo... This game sux" or the like. That's how. Arguing the term "Hyper-Casuals" is pure semantics at this point.
You know full well what I mean. "Content Locusts" Same difference. They don't care about depth. They should stick to shallow twitch games.
Laters.
So casual - a term given to people who play very little. And hyper casual - therefore meaning they play hardly at all.
And content locusts - a term given to people who chew through content as fast as possible
Now mean the same thing.
Interesting.
To me they seem completely opposite.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by HolophonistOriginally posted by VengeSunsoarOriginally posted by HolophonistWho decided that the only indicator for whether or not a market exists is if a game can be successfully crowd funded?
I'm sorry I must have missed where anyone said or even implied in any way at all that was the only indication or even the main indication.Lizardbones just said that crowdfunding was one of the many.Can you point where this was indicated?Well then I must have missed where he said it was one of many. EDIT: If you're looking for a quote: "When an "old school" style game funds itself, or gets funded through crowd funding, then there will be proof that the market exists."That would be proof however that statement does not state or imply that is the only proof. As for other things he said:
Self-funds
Old-school MMO website
video game site
thousands of registered uses on that website
facebook group
twitter feed
tumblr feed
blog with many followers
website dedicated to it
Those were all things he said that would/could be considered evidence or proof that the market exists. So including crowd-funding that is 10 different ways he stated. That qualifies as many.
I got really wordy in that post, but my point could have been shortened to the idea that if that market exists, it would be composed of human beings, not numbers. Those humans are going to do things and interact with the world in some way. Being an "old school" MMORPG aficionado does not mean living in a cabin on a mountain with no network connectivity and running everything on solar power because the "old school" MMORPGs fell out of style. If those people exist, if they are interested in and want "old school" MMORPGs, they are going to be doing things, probably on the internet. Those activities are going to be recorded and seen. It should be possible to Google search that stuff and find it.
I went in search of some "old school" gamer groups, forums, websites and Facebook groups and came up with very little. A Facebook page with 37 likes, a forum with 40 something registered users, etc. If this is the sum total of "old school" gamer activity, it's no wonder the industry is ignoring them. Even if they existed, the industry isn't going to be interested in them because they apparently don't understand or use the internet. They aren't going to be good customers. There is a tremendous disconnect between the idea of "old school" MMORPG players as a viable market segment and the information that can be seen on that market segment.
Sorry, I got wordy again.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by lizardbones Where is the "old school" MMORPG website or video game site?
www.waaaambulance.org
(sorry... couldn't resist )
:-)
Back to the points you and Ice were making, I really have no answers. There really are no numbers that can be shown, but there is lots of speculation and dreaming
I'd just like to see an MMORPG created with today's technology and some "Old School" features, just to see what would happen. From a business standpoint, that is rather stupid, though
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Three things why it won't work and these are VICIOUS threat's that can crush your dream, they will tear your dream apart.
First the gamers(not all but many): Unless you can keep it a secret and only for true old school players(only honest players can make it to an succes, thats very importend or it also wont work) will be involved or it fail.
If not and you let all gamers know its comming, the SPOONFED generation will tear it apart and destroy it before you know it.
Second money: It just won't work without it no matter how idealistic and altruistic developers are who do it for nothing eventually money is involved and it will destroy it also.
Third cheaters: They will also destroy your beloved old school game there is no game out there that have these sick cheating basterds and when they strike the fun is over before you know it.
There are offcorse other posibillity's that a game in development can go wrong but those three will destroy it fastest way you can immagine.
Negative maybe but seeing past decade how all developed around games im not far off.
Keep dreaming and hoping or even trying, dont let me stop you with my negative few on the matter.
Good luck hope you get your old school game.
Almost forgot if new medium is involved(crowedfunding-facebook ext for get it) its also very fast destroyed, the game is lost.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77 CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now)) MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB PSU:Corsair AX1200i OS:Windows 10 64bit
What would be nice if we had a REAL way to appeal to a developer or to get one to Liston to a larger group. First thing everyone here would say is " hay, just e-mail them " ....Now come on you should know better.
- I'm sure many here would love to see an Old School mmo.
- I'm sure many would say not.
- I'm sure many would say the OPINIONS would be all over the place on how it should be made. We should not have to give our OPINIONS.....Let them take care of that.
Here is my take on this subject, and yes its only my OPINION :
Many here don't know any better, they think of Old School = Old game. Even if it starts out as a niche mmo, I would think it would turn out to be a huge success. None the less it would be re-original since its been so long and at the very least still be a money maker for developers.
I wish mmorpg.com could look at our cry. Do an over all assessment of topics and appeal to a developer. Because as a one we have no voice......And last, I totally believe the new saying " vote with your wallet " is bull crap. We are starving from one release to the next and we all play everyone good or bad !
You make some good points, but your mistake is in assuming that you are a 'large market'.
That may have been true in 1990, but today the market (and the games) have grown large enough to where that is no longer true. You say that many here would love to see an Old School mmo. You'd be right. However, what you're overlooking is that those people (on this site) are around ~100 in number. This site has many more 'registered' users, but the people who regularly post here are around 100 in number (give or take). That is not enough to warrant an MMO.
That said, this is not the only site. You have other MMO sites, and places like reddit where people hang out. Eve has shown us that there are around 400k players in the world that would love to play a more hardcore space MMO. But that doesn't necessarily mean they'd enjoy an 'old school' MMO per se.
So, for the sake of argument, lets assume the actual total is closer to around ~600-800k who enjoy a 'true oldschool MMO'. No small number. Except none of those people can agree upon what actually constitutes an 'oldschool MMO'. So that number, which is large enough to warrant a game, then gets redivided up again into much smaller chunks.
That's not a 'large' group, when you're comparing it to the 10s of millions of other people who also play MMOs. If you engage in a numbers battle you will lose, every time.
That said, we do have MMOs that are trying to appeal towards more of the 'oldschool' audience. We've got your darkfall, EQN, GW2, archeage, etc. Are they all perfect replicas? Absolutely not. They all have flaws (though we don't know what EQN's will be). But each is extremely different from the next. And that's part of the problem. You can have a half-dozen games that all appeal to oldschool gamers, but in fundamentally different ways.
The solution towards getting what you want is not voting with the wallet as you say. But it's also not in forum outcries and such. Your best start is to petition, get 100s of thousands of names on a list that will say 'if you make this game, we WILL play it'. Unfortunately, you will then have to BACK IT UP with aciton. And that is one thing that us gamers have been notoriously bad at. We are extremely predictable, and often say one thing but do another.
At this point old school MMORPGs are any game that is not a casual themepark quest hub games because that's pretty much market standard. I find it hard to believe there are not untapped markets for sandboxes of any typel or even themeparks that focus on the world, lore and exploration.
I meant it's not well received by people on this site. I totally agree that voicing your opinion here and anywhere else contributes at least in some small way to letting developers et al know that we exist.
Maybe you haven't quite noticed but it's quite rare for such opinions to be stated without an added attack on the other side's preferences or mental capacity. As that's what these conversations almost always devolve into.
I'm not saying you do that as I'm not really familiar with your posts.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Icewhite Find a way to demonstrate a larger market share than "50 old me-too grumblers that can be found frequenting this site". Find a way to demonstrate possible acceptance for something other than games we've already had.Genuinely new ideas.
There really just needs to be enough interest to support the game being written. Perpetuum is running on less than 5,000 people, and I think Mortal Online is the same way, though Perpetuum runs a lot better than Mortal Online. It is certainly possible to write a game, even an MMORPG, for a small number of people, and do it in such a way that those people enjoy the game. I think the problem with the views on this site is the idea that there is a group of people number in the tens or hundreds of thousands that is also so hidden that it doesn't register on any developer's radar is ludicrous. So is the idea that there are investors willing to invest the millions of dollars it would take to write a game for a target audience of tens or hundreds of thousands of people.
I agree that this has some truth. And that is the hard part, coming up with factual numbers in print.If there was an old-time MMORPG that enough players "agreed with" for the design and features, numbers could be presented. I really do not see this scenario ever happening What messes up number comparisons is that no one knows why players leave or stay with any MMO. Did EQ's numbers start falling because players went to WoW, or because they introduced WoW elements into EQ? Probably a bit of both, maybe even more to one side than the other.Why did old MMOROG's populations start to drop? Did players get busy IRL? Did they find a better MMO? Did they get bored? There are many reasons why they may have stopped playing.And the final kicker, how many old-time MMORPG players play new MMOs just to be in an MMO, therefor adding to the new MMO numbers, but not really finding the game they desire to play? Speaking only for myself, I have a lot of F2P new MMO accounts scattered about the the MMO industry. Even though I am not playing them, the accounts are there and being counted. I am one of 30 million players Wizard101 claims, even though I have not logged in about 2 years. MMO companies are not very open with their player numbers, especially F2P games with no monthly sub income to look at in financial reports.While what you two are saying is true to some extent, it cannot be held up as "written in stone" as many like to make it out. There are too many assumptions for my taste to blindly the numbers (almost any numbers) presented.If MMO publishers used numbers solely, they would have never worked on mass producing light bulbs, quite simply because, nobody bought them until they were made. I don't think hamburger ice cream would be good. Who knows, maybe there are millions of people out there wanting that specific item?My point being, if publishers do not try the market, how can they be sure there is no market?
Publishers have tried the market. They started the market. They know more about the market than anyone in these forums. When an "old school" style game funds itself, or gets funded through crowd funding, then there will be proof that the market exists. Star Citizen shows that there's a market for whatever kind of game SC is and that crowd funding is a way to tap into their market. To the best of my knowledge, other than tech demos, no "old school" style game has actually gotten funded. Certainly not an MMORPG. When is this market going to decloak and show itself? When are they going to crowd fund an "old school" game instead of barely funding a tech demo of an "old school" style game? Where is the "old school" MMORPG website or video game site? Where are the thousands of registered users on that website? If the market was there, if those people existed in large numbers, and those people were aware of the internet, there would be a Facebook group, Twitter feed, Tumblr feed, Blog with many followers or an entire website dedicated to it. There would be something. Where is it? Ten people on an MMORPG forum to not a market make.
Crowd-funding is a brand new phenom. It's literally less than 2 years old . . . Just this week the spiritual sequel to Myst & Riven started it's crowd-funding campaign on Kickstarter and is going to be successful.
We have no idea what's going to happen. The only MMO that's been tried on Kickstarter was a rousing success and is currently in production. See Camelot Unchained.
There's plenty of room for more old-school MMO's to give it a try. And they probably will. Don't get your panties in a bunch because it hasn't happened instantly, give it a little more time.
This is what I would call a good start. There is at least evidence that a game similar to DAoC, with an experienced developer has a market with enough money in it to get $2M in crowd funding and the developer is able to put up a couple million in their own money. This game seems likely to at least get made. It is certainly an indicator that it's possible to float a game that is reminiscent of an "old school" game.
That doesn't mean an "old school" market exists. Those people who are stoked for a DAoC revamp, all 14,873 of them aren't necessarily looking for a renaissance of "old school" games, just a revamp of DAoC.
I wanted to respond to this post in particular because it contains 100% more information than the vast majority of posts in support of the "old school" market idea. It pretty much trumps all those other posts, and I would love to see more posts like this, instead of posts talking about localized, personal experience. This is not sarcasm. A factual response in support of an idea is a good thing, whether I agree with the response or not.
Thanks for the props. Much appreciated.
I agree that we can't be sure if a market exists for the "old-school MMO". I'm personally willing to bet heavily on it - but it's only conjecture until there are results.
My educated guess is really based on the success of Star Citizen, with Camelot Unchained reinforcing my theory. What we know regarding Star Citizen is that Chris Roberts went to the space-sim community - literally a forum like this one - and just said "hey, we're launching a Kickstarter for something special in a few weeks, so be ready." The base community turned out for him and donated heavily, giving the project it's "wings".
I also think success has as much to do with base community giving a project it's "wings" (so-to-speak) at the initial start of the campaign, as it does with the developer continuing the crowd-funding well beyond the traditional 30 day Kickstarter. Star Citizen didn't do more than average (2-3 million) on Kickstarter - but it's also never stopped crowd-funding for over a year on it's own website. It continually markets itself and now has a AAA war-chest of 26 million to show for it. With it's current pace, it's likely to end up at 50 milllion dollars in crowd-funding before launch.
I think an old-school MMO could do this as well, if launched and marketed correctly. It would have to be a recognized developer with a solid idea. It could be a new IP, but an old IP would work too. If only Everquest wasn't owned by Sony, we could have "Everquest Returns". They could make it a $5/monthly subscription mode and do quite well financially (it costs almost nothing to run servers despite what we've been told, according to recent developer interviews). They wouldn't need a cash shop or any of that crap. They could give early-backers a copy of the game and a free 1 year subscription or some other variation.
There's alot of possbility for something like this. Hell, it could even be the next "big" MMO, if done correctly.
Just for fun, who on here would back a crowd-funded campaign for an old-school MMO? I certainly would.
I realize we are all just passionate about our gaming and entertainment, and I think that where the snarkiness comes from. I don't mean to add to the vitriol. So with that I just wanna apologize for coming off snarky. It's just frustrating to see thing that are enjoyed so much, evolve to the point where I'm no longer considered a target demographic. It leaves me wondering WTF happened and kinda sad and homesick for the environment I put so much time and effort in.
Again, in an effort to not keep perpetuating the hostility, I humbly apologize for my intentional snarkiness. I want things to get better for all, not worse.
You have a lot of good points (and some really great links), however it's still up to the players that want a particular type of game to make the developers aware they exist.
It's not exactly well received when we make our preferences known and clear.
This is not true. How do we know the minds of Developers? They are beholden to the Publishers - they have no choice in the decision of whether or not to make a game.
Click those links and listen to the stories that MAJOR industry developers tell about their experiences with publishers. They talk about how there is a huge demand for certain games, but they still get denied funding because it's not "Angry Birds". This is really what's been happening for 10 years. But now things are changing with crowd-funding. If we just roll over and give up now we'd be foolish - this is the best opportunity that we've had to see what we want made in 15 years. We should take advantage of it.
I would ask how they "know" these things. Do they have credible market research? Where do they get their data? If they actually have hard information about market preferences, I can't imagine that publishers wouldn't listen, after all, the publishers want to make money and if there is actually a demonatrably untapped market, they'd go for it.
No, what is more likely is exactly what happens around here. People want something to be true and therefore they claim that it is true. They want to play a certain kind of game, therefore they act like everyone wants to play that game without having any actual evidence that it's true. I can't imagine that developers are any less inclined to such wishful thinking than the people here in these forums.
Originally posted by Holophonist Who decided that the only indicator for whether or not a market exists is if a game can be successfully crowd funded?
I'm sorry I must have missed where anyone said or even implied in any way at all that was the only indication or even the main indication.
Lizardbones just said that crowdfunding was one of the many.
Can you point where this was indicated?
Well then I must have missed where he said it was one of many.
EDIT: If you're looking for a quote: "When an "old school" style game funds itself, or gets funded through crowd funding, then there will be proof that the market exists."
Yet that's not even the case. There are lots of reasons why Kickstarter campaigns succeed or fail, most of them have nothing to do with the product itself because no one has seen the actual product at that point. It's about how things are presented, what kinds of promises are made and, especially on Kickstarter, what kinds of goodies are promised to bring in more money. We don't know if these games will be financially successful on an ongoing basis until they're actually released. It doesn't matter how much money it makes from crowdfunding if nobody signs up and pays the monthly fees and the game goes under.
You have a lot of good points (and some really great links), however it's still up to the players that want a particular type of game to make the developers aware they exist.
It's not exactly well received when we make our preferences known and clear.
This is not true. How do we know the minds of Developers? They are beholden to the Publishers - they have no choice in the decision of whether or not to make a game.
Click those links and listen to the stories that MAJOR industry developers tell about their experiences with publishers. They talk about how there is a huge demand for certain games, but they still get denied funding because it's not "Angry Birds". This is really what's been happening for 10 years. But now things are changing with crowd-funding. If we just roll over and give up now we'd be foolish - this is the best opportunity that we've had to see what we want made in 15 years. We should take advantage of it.
I would ask how they "know" these things. Do they have credible market research? Where do they get their data? If they actually have hard information about market preferences, I can't imagine that publishers wouldn't listen, after all, the publishers want to make money and if there is actually a demonatrably untapped market, they'd go for it.
No, what is more likely is exactly what happens around here. People want something to be true and therefore they claim that it is true. They want to play a certain kind of game, therefore they act like everyone wants to play that game without having any actual evidence that it's true. I can't imagine that developers are any less inclined to such wishful thinking than the people here in these forums.
Nothing is 100% for sure in business. That being said - developers can often assess the strength of an IP or potential project as they are themselves members of these communities. They are also industry veterans who have had many successful games and studios. I'm talking big IP's: like Fallout, Wing Commander, Baldur's Gate, Knights of the Old Republic and lots more. But regardless of all that - why are you questioning the business sense of these people by stating they can't assess the potential strength of their products without advanced market research? Who knows what market research they've completed. Maybe it's a gut feeling. Maybe it's star sense. Who the hell are any of us to doubt these people? Especially after all these successful crowd-funding campaigns. Please name a well known developer that has failed in a Kickstarter. Name one. I can't think of any. Until one fails, I won't doubt their ability to correctly asses their markets. And even if one fails, then that attempt it itself might demonstrate the lack of viability in a certain genre, rather than market research. A failed attempt to crowd-fund loses the developer nothing.
I'd have a bit more sympathy for your post as it seems that you're trying to be reasonable. The problem is, I've posted several times in this thread and linked shit-loads of conferences and panels with famous developers explaining exactly why Publishers don't listen to even the most successful and popular minds in the industry. The logic behind your premise seems fine on paper, but the behind-the-scenes information that's come out in 2012-2013 shines an entirely different light on how things actually work regarding the developer/publisher dynamic. I highly recommend you read the full thread and check out some of those links. Because at this point, what you're saying has already been rehashed and debunked several times.
You have a lot of good points (and some really great links), however it's still up to the players that want a particular type of game to make the developers aware they exist.
It's not exactly well received when we make our preferences known and clear.
This is not true. How do we know the minds of Developers? They are beholden to the Publishers - they have no choice in the decision of whether or not to make a game.
Click those links and listen to the stories that MAJOR industry developers tell about their experiences with publishers. They talk about how there is a huge demand for certain games, but they still get denied funding because it's not "Angry Birds". This is really what's been happening for 10 years. But now things are changing with crowd-funding. If we just roll over and give up now we'd be foolish - this is the best opportunity that we've had to see what we want made in 15 years. We should take advantage of it.
I would ask how they "know" these things. Do they have credible market research? Where do they get their data? If they actually have hard information about market preferences, I can't imagine that publishers wouldn't listen, after all, the publishers want to make money and if there is actually a demonatrably untapped market, they'd go for it.
No, what is more likely is exactly what happens around here. People want something to be true and therefore they claim that it is true. They want to play a certain kind of game, therefore they act like everyone wants to play that game without having any actual evidence that it's true. I can't imagine that developers are any less inclined to such wishful thinking than the people here in these forums.
There is a difference in saying we don't have the research, and saying we know that will never work. Which is the tune we hear.
There is a reason we keep getting the same game over and over. And other platforms and genres are rocking the house with what will never work. There is no one left to acquire. There is no reason to be acquired. The publishers MUST take a risk or just be late to the party.
Is it because they know it wont work with their "formula' Or hooks? Im really curious as to how new gameplay patterns will be made or discovered. How does it work currently?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
lol at expecting people to play a game that is 15 years old and saying its dead because no one likes those types of games anymore. I am sure it has nothing to do with the graphics or only being so much you can patch an old game to have new stuff in it.
When the only companies making what you want are indies or kickstarters, 9 times out of ten you're going to have to settle for a downscale in bells and whistles. Be it overall graphics, animations, advanced graphical techniques, etc...
The really amusing thing is it's rare to see many of these oldschool types back any type of project, there's always something wrong with it. Regardless of the fact they're among the few trying to cater to those wants and desires. It's almost as if the only thing they get pleasure from is tearing things down.
I strongly agree here. I see a request to have modern graphics coupled with oldschool game play, but not a good way to fund that. Nice graphics and sound are expensive.
Then you hit the real nail on the head. I don't see people putting their money down to support their idea. There always seems to be a dealbreaker. It's the same excuse people use as to why they don't play the current oldschool offerings - those games are too different now. But they became different because a larger portion of their dedicated players didn't like some of the initial mechanics.
Uh, no. They became different because publishers and developers thought that making their games more like WoW would attract more players. 8 years later, and we more or less know that making your game more like WoW is the fastest way to sink it.
I'd love to see a DAoC 2, but I'm never going to put money into DAoC 1 ever again. Why? Because EA runs it now. The people who made DAoC 1 are gone. Everything EA touches turns to shit. I'm going to give my money to Camelot Unchained, because I have a much better chance at getting a good game that way.
Eve has proven that targetting a niche hardcore audience and constantly improving your game vs revamping it to chase the casual audience, is a safe, stable, and successful business model.
Think about it. Every AAA MMO is a WoW clone, just about. They all cost a TON to make because they're themeparks.
A publisher could invest less money, get better devs like Raph Koster, and focus on niche audiences, and be more successful. But publishers only chase big bucks. Not stable medium bucks.
Originally posted by Holophonist Who decided that the only indicator for whether or not a market exists is if a game can be successfully crowd funded?
I'm sorry I must have missed where anyone said or even implied in any way at all that was the only indication or even the main indication.
Lizardbones just said that crowdfunding was one of the many.
Can you point where this was indicated?
Well then I must have missed where he said it was one of many.
EDIT: If you're looking for a quote: "When an "old school" style game funds itself, or gets funded through crowd funding, then there will be proof that the market exists."
That would be proof however that statement does not state or imply that is the only proof. As for other things he said:
Self-funds
Old-school MMO website
video game site
thousands of registered uses on that website
facebook group
twitter feed
tumblr feed
blog with many followers
website dedicated to it
Those were all things he said that would/could be considered evidence or proof that the market exists. So including crowd-funding that is 10 different ways he stated. That qualifies as many.
Yes, it does imply that. Him spouting off things that would be happening if the market existed doesn't mean that if any of those things existed it would prove that the market exists. The quote I provided absolutely implies that crowd funding is the only way to prove that the market exists.
Example:
"Honey, once you start going to your AA meetings consistently, then that'll prove you're a changed man."
"Well... what if I just completely quit drinking on my own? I'd still be a changed man."
Nope. Stating one example of many that he stated does not imply that the one example is the only one. In fact since it was just just one of many, it can be factually stated that it is only one of many ways to prove the scenario. If it was the only way, he would have stated only one example. He listed 10 examples, so there can be no implication it was the only one. I mean he listed 10, therefore it doesn't make any sense to imply that he thought there is only one. He listed 10.
And yes if any of those things existed it would prove that the market exists. Those are not the only proof, and once again he did not imply that. He just gave examples of some proof.
So far there is really no proof that a large market exists.
In your example, the first person doesn't state that is the only way. The only way to know if they believe that is the only way is to see their response. If they say no, or give another way (and lizard gave 9 other ways) then we know they do not believe there is only one way.
I don't know how you can honestly believe that he implied there is only one way to proove it, when he stated 10 different ways.
I'm not sure I want to get into another technical discussion with you as it seems it always ends up in you just leaving without a concession.
Buuuuut I'm stubborn so I'm going to. He never said those other things would prove that there is a market for them. He said if there were a market, those things would be apparent. There's a difference. He's saying if there were a large market there would be a facebook group for it. That's different from saying if there were a facebook group, that would mean there's a large market. Any one of those things existing wouldn't prove that the market exists. Clearly his emphasis was on the crowd funding or self-funding thing. And quite frankly, I don't agree to those terms. I don't agree that the market hasn't revealed itself until an entire game has been crowd funded.
I meant it's not well received by people on this site. I totally agree that voicing your opinion here and anywhere else contributes at least in some small way to letting developers et al know that we exist.
Maybe you haven't quite noticed but it's quite rare for such opinions to be stated without an added attack on the other side's preferences or mental capacity. As that's what these conversations almost always devolve into.
I'm not saying you do that as I'm not really familiar with your posts.
you're right I haven't noticed that. In fact I've noticed more of the opposite: pve only players pushing their opinions more aggressively and insultingly. I see references to sociopaths and gankers and griefers more than I see references to carebears etc, and the former are more serious and insulting allegations than the latter.
Buy games from developers that are doing things you like. It's pretty simple, really. Unless you're on the dev team, don't expect your input to directly affect game design.
Also, don't assume that just because you and what may seem like a huge forum full of people all like some type or genre of game design, that it means you're in the majority. We tend to surround ourselves with like-minded people, so it's easy to feel like developers are being idiots by not making the game that you think would be incredibly popular. Money talks, and the direction the industry is going is the one that players are funding.
Originally posted by HolophonistWho decided that the only indicator for whether or not a market exists is if a game can be successfully crowd funded?
I'm sorry I must have missed where anyone said or even implied in any way at all that was the only indication or even the main indication.Lizardbones just said that crowdfunding was one of the many.Can you point where this was indicated?
Well then I must have missed where he said it was one of many. EDIT: If you're looking for a quote: "When an "old school" style game funds itself, or gets funded through crowd funding, then there will be proof that the market exists."
That would be proof however that statement does not state or imply that is the only proof. As for other things he said:
Self-funds
Old-school MMO website
video game site
thousands of registered uses on that website
facebook group
twitter feed
tumblr feed
blog with many followers
website dedicated to it
Those were all things he said that would/could be considered evidence or proof that the market exists. So including crowd-funding that is 10 different ways he stated. That qualifies as many.
I got really wordy in that post, but my point could have been shortened to the idea that if that market exists, it would be composed of human beings, not numbers. Those humans are going to do things and interact with the world in some way. Being an "old school" MMORPG aficionado does not mean living in a cabin on a mountain with no network connectivity and running everything on solar power because the "old school" MMORPGs fell out of style. If those people exist, if they are interested in and want "old school" MMORPGs, they are going to be doing things, probably on the internet. Those activities are going to be recorded and seen. It should be possible to Google search that stuff and find it.
I went in search of some "old school" gamer groups, forums, websites and Facebook groups and came up with very little. A Facebook page with 37 likes, a forum with 40 something registered users, etc. If this is the sum total of "old school" gamer activity, it's no wonder the industry is ignoring them. Even if they existed, the industry isn't going to be interested in them because they apparently don't understand or use the internet. They aren't going to be good customers. There is a tremendous disconnect between the idea of "old school" MMORPG players as a viable market segment and the information that can be seen on that market segment.
Sorry, I got wordy again.
I'm not clear on what exactly you're claiming. Games that have the features that oldschool advocates like myself ask for exist and have players. I've brought up EVE as an example a number of times and nobody seems to want to talk about it. There's a game that has a lot of the features that many of us oldschool players want, and it's very successful. Not only that, it's very daunting and not at all intuitive. On the other hand it also obviously has a lot of "newschool" stuff in it so that's why I'm asking for some clarification on what exactly you're saying.
But there are also a lot of people playing and enjoying various oldschool games separately. There are communities for private UO servers, an SWG emulator, a Shadowbane emulator in the works, etc. They're all playing "oldschool" games. Do they count?
It just seems like such a weird thing to demand. For instance (and I hope I'm not shooting myself in the foot here), are there many communities for "newschool" mmos? Or are they just playing them individually?
I'm not sure I want to get into another technical discussion with you as it seems it always ends up in you just leaving without a concession.
Buuuuut I'm stubborn so I'm going to. He never said those other things would prove that there is a market for them. He said if there were a market, those things would be apparent. There's a difference. He's saying if there were a large market there would be a facebook group for it. That's different from saying if there were a facebook group, that would mean there's a large market. Any one of those things existing wouldn't prove that the market exists. Clearly his emphasis was on the crowd funding or self-funding thing. And quite frankly, I don't agree to those terms. I don't agree that the market hasn't revealed itself until an entire game has been crowd funded.
No. He didn't. He is saying if there was a large market there would be some evidence. Evidence could be (but is not limited to) any of the 10 ways he stated. There was no emphasis on one or the other, rather it was that something would exist and he gave several different ways that it could happen.
He is not saying, "if there was a large market there would be a facebook group". He is saying if there was a large market there would be some group somewhere, it could be crowd funding, facebook, twitter, some website... something somewhere.
He did not limit it to one thing, but stated 10 different things, implying that there are many ways there could be evidence for it.
He never said the only evidence was a self-funded game that was only 1 of 10 possible evidences that could be used.
Any one of those thigns might not prove it exists but it would give evidence of it's existence.
edit - now the logical come back to this is the expression an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence which is true. It is also true that the larger a group is the more evidence there is of it. It is also true that typically evidence one way or the other is found whenever people go looking for it, and there are people looking for this. Devs/publishers are constantly looking at the market, gamers are looking at the market, researchers are looking at the market. Thus Occam's Razor applies. With all those people looking, if they can't find it, it likely is not large enough to be found.
On the other hand, maybe they have found it, and the next sandboxish games is in response to it.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I have been thinking the exact same thing. To me it's the content locusts who have ZERO patience and know nothing about the satisfaction one gets from earning things (gear, lvl, etc.). People who take time to smell the roses appreciate everything they earn so much more.
The hyper-casuals run from start to finish as fast as they can and don't even appreciate all a MMORPG has to offer. My first toon took me like 4 or 5 months to level, and I love every minute of it and felt oh so accomplished when I finally made it to max lvl. I miss those days so much, and I miss the world full of people, hangin out in chat, making friends running a dungeon in a group for the first time... sheer joy!
Unfortunately, the casuals also have the loudest voice and that, it seems, it what the developers listen to... the loudest voice.
Serious Gamers Unite!
How does a hyper casual, rush to the end. By definition "casual" doesn't really rush to anything. It sounds like you're really hung up on the word casual but from what you're saying.....you are one.
Developers listen to money....nothing else.
Because hyper-casuals steer clear of any challenges, try once, maybe twice, then fail and cry that it's too hard. They want everything handed to them without putting in the work, otherwise it's "Boo Hoo... This game sux" or the like. That's how. Arguing the term "Hyper-Casuals" is pure semantics at this point.
You know full well what I mean. "Content Locusts" Same difference. They don't care about depth. They should stick to shallow twitch games.
Laters.
So casual - a term given to people who play very little. And hyper casual - therefore meaning they play hardly at all.
And content locusts - a term given to people who chew through content as fast as possible
Now mean the same thing.
Interesting.
To me they seem completely opposite.
I think it's a..I don't like this made up type of person and that's the name I've given them type of thing.
I'm not sure I want to get into another technical discussion with you as it seems it always ends up in you just leaving without a concession.
Buuuuut I'm stubborn so I'm going to. He never said those other things would prove that there is a market for them. He said if there were a market, those things would be apparent. There's a difference. He's saying if there were a large market there would be a facebook group for it. That's different from saying if there were a facebook group, that would mean there's a large market. Any one of those things existing wouldn't prove that the market exists. Clearly his emphasis was on the crowd funding or self-funding thing. And quite frankly, I don't agree to those terms. I don't agree that the market hasn't revealed itself until an entire game has been crowd funded.
No. He didn't. He is saying if there was a large market there would be some evidence. Evidence could be (but is not limited to) any of the 10 ways he stated. There was no emphasis on one or the other, rather it was that something would exist and he gave several different ways that it could happen.
He is not saying, "if there was a large market there would be a facebook group". He is saying if there was a large market there would be some group somewhere, it could be crowd funding, facebook, twitter, some website... something somewhere.
He did not limit it to one thing, but stated 10 different things, implying that there are many ways there could be evidence for it.
He never said the only evidence was a self-funded game that was only 1 of 10 possible evidences that could be used.
Any one of those thigns might not prove it exists but it would give evidence of it's existence.
Well the success of dota2 and similar mobas has nothing to do with mmo's.
If mmos were doing good, they would be growing. Prove they are growing. Go on. Where is the massive multiplayer growth?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I'm not sure I want to get into another technical discussion with you as it seems it always ends up in you just leaving without a concession.
Buuuuut I'm stubborn so I'm going to. He never said those other things would prove that there is a market for them. He said if there were a market, those things would be apparent. There's a difference. He's saying if there were a large market there would be a facebook group for it. That's different from saying if there were a facebook group, that would mean there's a large market. Any one of those things existing wouldn't prove that the market exists. Clearly his emphasis was on the crowd funding or self-funding thing. And quite frankly, I don't agree to those terms. I don't agree that the market hasn't revealed itself until an entire game has been crowd funded.
No. He didn't. He is saying if there was a large market there would be some evidence. Evidence could be (but is not limited to) any of the 10 ways he stated. There was no emphasis on one or the other, rather it was that something would exist and he gave several different ways that it could happen.
He is not saying, "if there was a large market there would be a facebook group". He is saying if there was a large market there would be some group somewhere, it could be crowd funding, facebook, twitter, some website... something somewhere.
He did not limit it to one thing, but stated 10 different things, implying that there are many ways there could be evidence for it.
He never said the only evidence was a self-funded game that was only 1 of 10 possible evidences that could be used.
Any one of those thigns might not prove it exists but it would give evidence of it's existence.
Well the success of dota2 and similar mobas has nothing to do with mmo's.
If mmos were doing good, they would be growing. Prove they are growing. Go on. Where is the massive multiplayer growth?
What are you talking about?
Who is talking about dota2? or other moba's?
We're talking about the evidence, or lack of it, of a large group of people who want old-school mmo's.
Whatever you are talking about has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
So casual - a term given to people who play very little. And hyper casual - therefore meaning they play hardly at all.
And content locusts - a term given to people who chew through content as fast as possible
Now mean the same thing.
Interesting.
To me they seem completely opposite.
Well then I must have missed where he said it was one of many. EDIT: If you're looking for a quote: "When an "old school" style game funds itself, or gets funded through crowd funding, then there will be proof that the market exists."
That would be proof however that statement does not state or imply that is the only proof. As for other things he said:
Self-funds
Old-school MMO website
video game site
thousands of registered uses on that website
facebook group
twitter feed
tumblr feed
blog with many followers
website dedicated to it
Those were all things he said that would/could be considered evidence or proof that the market exists. So including crowd-funding that is 10 different ways he stated. That qualifies as many.
I got really wordy in that post, but my point could have been shortened to the idea that if that market exists, it would be composed of human beings, not numbers. Those humans are going to do things and interact with the world in some way. Being an "old school" MMORPG aficionado does not mean living in a cabin on a mountain with no network connectivity and running everything on solar power because the "old school" MMORPGs fell out of style. If those people exist, if they are interested in and want "old school" MMORPGs, they are going to be doing things, probably on the internet. Those activities are going to be recorded and seen. It should be possible to Google search that stuff and find it.
I went in search of some "old school" gamer groups, forums, websites and Facebook groups and came up with very little. A Facebook page with 37 likes, a forum with 40 something registered users, etc. If this is the sum total of "old school" gamer activity, it's no wonder the industry is ignoring them. Even if they existed, the industry isn't going to be interested in them because they apparently don't understand or use the internet. They aren't going to be good customers. There is a tremendous disconnect between the idea of "old school" MMORPG players as a viable market segment and the information that can be seen on that market segment.
Sorry, I got wordy again.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I'd just like to see an MMORPG created with today's technology and some "Old School" features, just to see what would happen. From a business standpoint, that is rather stupid, though
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Gratz on your pointless argument.
Three things why it won't work and these are VICIOUS threat's that can crush your dream, they will tear your dream apart.
First the gamers(not all but many): Unless you can keep it a secret and only for true old school players(only honest players can make it to an succes, thats very importend or it also wont work) will be involved or it fail.
If not and you let all gamers know its comming, the SPOONFED generation will tear it apart and destroy it before you know it.
Second money: It just won't work without it no matter how idealistic and altruistic developers are who do it for nothing eventually money is involved and it will destroy it also.
Third cheaters: They will also destroy your beloved old school game there is no game out there that have these sick cheating basterds and when they strike the fun is over before you know it.
There are offcorse other posibillity's that a game in development can go wrong but those three will destroy it fastest way you can immagine.
Negative maybe but seeing past decade how all developed around games im not far off.
Keep dreaming and hoping or even trying, dont let me stop you with my negative few on the matter.
Good luck hope you get your old school game.
Almost forgot if new medium is involved(crowedfunding-facebook ext for get it) its also very fast destroyed, the game is lost.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
You make some good points, but your mistake is in assuming that you are a 'large market'.
That may have been true in 1990, but today the market (and the games) have grown large enough to where that is no longer true. You say that many here would love to see an Old School mmo. You'd be right. However, what you're overlooking is that those people (on this site) are around ~100 in number. This site has many more 'registered' users, but the people who regularly post here are around 100 in number (give or take). That is not enough to warrant an MMO.
That said, this is not the only site. You have other MMO sites, and places like reddit where people hang out. Eve has shown us that there are around 400k players in the world that would love to play a more hardcore space MMO. But that doesn't necessarily mean they'd enjoy an 'old school' MMO per se.
So, for the sake of argument, lets assume the actual total is closer to around ~600-800k who enjoy a 'true oldschool MMO'. No small number. Except none of those people can agree upon what actually constitutes an 'oldschool MMO'. So that number, which is large enough to warrant a game, then gets redivided up again into much smaller chunks.
That's not a 'large' group, when you're comparing it to the 10s of millions of other people who also play MMOs. If you engage in a numbers battle you will lose, every time.
That said, we do have MMOs that are trying to appeal towards more of the 'oldschool' audience. We've got your darkfall, EQN, GW2, archeage, etc. Are they all perfect replicas? Absolutely not. They all have flaws (though we don't know what EQN's will be). But each is extremely different from the next. And that's part of the problem. You can have a half-dozen games that all appeal to oldschool gamers, but in fundamentally different ways.
The solution towards getting what you want is not voting with the wallet as you say. But it's also not in forum outcries and such. Your best start is to petition, get 100s of thousands of names on a list that will say 'if you make this game, we WILL play it'. Unfortunately, you will then have to BACK IT UP with aciton. And that is one thing that us gamers have been notoriously bad at. We are extremely predictable, and often say one thing but do another.
Maybe you haven't quite noticed but it's quite rare for such opinions to be stated without an added attack on the other side's preferences or mental capacity. As that's what these conversations almost always devolve into.
I'm not saying you do that as I'm not really familiar with your posts.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Thanks for the props. Much appreciated.
I agree that we can't be sure if a market exists for the "old-school MMO". I'm personally willing to bet heavily on it - but it's only conjecture until there are results.
My educated guess is really based on the success of Star Citizen, with Camelot Unchained reinforcing my theory. What we know regarding Star Citizen is that Chris Roberts went to the space-sim community - literally a forum like this one - and just said "hey, we're launching a Kickstarter for something special in a few weeks, so be ready." The base community turned out for him and donated heavily, giving the project it's "wings".
I also think success has as much to do with base community giving a project it's "wings" (so-to-speak) at the initial start of the campaign, as it does with the developer continuing the crowd-funding well beyond the traditional 30 day Kickstarter. Star Citizen didn't do more than average (2-3 million) on Kickstarter - but it's also never stopped crowd-funding for over a year on it's own website. It continually markets itself and now has a AAA war-chest of 26 million to show for it. With it's current pace, it's likely to end up at 50 milllion dollars in crowd-funding before launch.
I think an old-school MMO could do this as well, if launched and marketed correctly. It would have to be a recognized developer with a solid idea. It could be a new IP, but an old IP would work too. If only Everquest wasn't owned by Sony, we could have "Everquest Returns". They could make it a $5/monthly subscription mode and do quite well financially (it costs almost nothing to run servers despite what we've been told, according to recent developer interviews). They wouldn't need a cash shop or any of that crap. They could give early-backers a copy of the game and a free 1 year subscription or some other variation.
There's alot of possbility for something like this. Hell, it could even be the next "big" MMO, if done correctly.
Just for fun, who on here would back a crowd-funded campaign for an old-school MMO? I certainly would.
I realize we are all just passionate about our gaming and entertainment, and I think that where the snarkiness comes from. I don't mean to add to the vitriol. So with that I just wanna apologize for coming off snarky. It's just frustrating to see thing that are enjoyed so much, evolve to the point where I'm no longer considered a target demographic. It leaves me wondering WTF happened and kinda sad and homesick for the environment I put so much time and effort in.
Again, in an effort to not keep perpetuating the hostility, I humbly apologize for my intentional snarkiness. I want things to get better for all, not worse.
Laters.
I would ask how they "know" these things. Do they have credible market research? Where do they get their data? If they actually have hard information about market preferences, I can't imagine that publishers wouldn't listen, after all, the publishers want to make money and if there is actually a demonatrably untapped market, they'd go for it.
No, what is more likely is exactly what happens around here. People want something to be true and therefore they claim that it is true. They want to play a certain kind of game, therefore they act like everyone wants to play that game without having any actual evidence that it's true. I can't imagine that developers are any less inclined to such wishful thinking than the people here in these forums.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Yet that's not even the case. There are lots of reasons why Kickstarter campaigns succeed or fail, most of them have nothing to do with the product itself because no one has seen the actual product at that point. It's about how things are presented, what kinds of promises are made and, especially on Kickstarter, what kinds of goodies are promised to bring in more money. We don't know if these games will be financially successful on an ongoing basis until they're actually released. It doesn't matter how much money it makes from crowdfunding if nobody signs up and pays the monthly fees and the game goes under.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Nothing is 100% for sure in business. That being said - developers can often assess the strength of an IP or potential project as they are themselves members of these communities. They are also industry veterans who have had many successful games and studios. I'm talking big IP's: like Fallout, Wing Commander, Baldur's Gate, Knights of the Old Republic and lots more. But regardless of all that - why are you questioning the business sense of these people by stating they can't assess the potential strength of their products without advanced market research? Who knows what market research they've completed. Maybe it's a gut feeling. Maybe it's star sense. Who the hell are any of us to doubt these people? Especially after all these successful crowd-funding campaigns. Please name a well known developer that has failed in a Kickstarter. Name one. I can't think of any. Until one fails, I won't doubt their ability to correctly asses their markets. And even if one fails, then that attempt it itself might demonstrate the lack of viability in a certain genre, rather than market research. A failed attempt to crowd-fund loses the developer nothing.
I'd have a bit more sympathy for your post as it seems that you're trying to be reasonable. The problem is, I've posted several times in this thread and linked shit-loads of conferences and panels with famous developers explaining exactly why Publishers don't listen to even the most successful and popular minds in the industry. The logic behind your premise seems fine on paper, but the behind-the-scenes information that's come out in 2012-2013 shines an entirely different light on how things actually work regarding the developer/publisher dynamic. I highly recommend you read the full thread and check out some of those links. Because at this point, what you're saying has already been rehashed and debunked several times.
There is a difference in saying we don't have the research, and saying we know that will never work. Which is the tune we hear.
There is a reason we keep getting the same game over and over. And other platforms and genres are rocking the house with what will never work. There is no one left to acquire. There is no reason to be acquired. The publishers MUST take a risk or just be late to the party.
Is it because they know it wont work with their "formula' Or hooks? Im really curious as to how new gameplay patterns will be made or discovered. How does it work currently?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Uh, no. They became different because publishers and developers thought that making their games more like WoW would attract more players. 8 years later, and we more or less know that making your game more like WoW is the fastest way to sink it.
I'd love to see a DAoC 2, but I'm never going to put money into DAoC 1 ever again. Why? Because EA runs it now. The people who made DAoC 1 are gone. Everything EA touches turns to shit. I'm going to give my money to Camelot Unchained, because I have a much better chance at getting a good game that way.
Eve has proven that targetting a niche hardcore audience and constantly improving your game vs revamping it to chase the casual audience, is a safe, stable, and successful business model.
Think about it. Every AAA MMO is a WoW clone, just about. They all cost a TON to make because they're themeparks.
A publisher could invest less money, get better devs like Raph Koster, and focus on niche audiences, and be more successful. But publishers only chase big bucks. Not stable medium bucks.
I'm not sure I want to get into another technical discussion with you as it seems it always ends up in you just leaving without a concession.
Buuuuut I'm stubborn so I'm going to. He never said those other things would prove that there is a market for them. He said if there were a market, those things would be apparent. There's a difference. He's saying if there were a large market there would be a facebook group for it. That's different from saying if there were a facebook group, that would mean there's a large market. Any one of those things existing wouldn't prove that the market exists. Clearly his emphasis was on the crowd funding or self-funding thing. And quite frankly, I don't agree to those terms. I don't agree that the market hasn't revealed itself until an entire game has been crowd funded.
you're right I haven't noticed that. In fact I've noticed more of the opposite: pve only players pushing their opinions more aggressively and insultingly. I see references to sociopaths and gankers and griefers more than I see references to carebears etc, and the former are more serious and insulting allegations than the latter.
Buy games from developers that are doing things you like. It's pretty simple, really. Unless you're on the dev team, don't expect your input to directly affect game design.
Also, don't assume that just because you and what may seem like a huge forum full of people all like some type or genre of game design, that it means you're in the majority. We tend to surround ourselves with like-minded people, so it's easy to feel like developers are being idiots by not making the game that you think would be incredibly popular. Money talks, and the direction the industry is going is the one that players are funding.
You make me like charity
I'm not clear on what exactly you're claiming. Games that have the features that oldschool advocates like myself ask for exist and have players. I've brought up EVE as an example a number of times and nobody seems to want to talk about it. There's a game that has a lot of the features that many of us oldschool players want, and it's very successful. Not only that, it's very daunting and not at all intuitive. On the other hand it also obviously has a lot of "newschool" stuff in it so that's why I'm asking for some clarification on what exactly you're saying.
But there are also a lot of people playing and enjoying various oldschool games separately. There are communities for private UO servers, an SWG emulator, a Shadowbane emulator in the works, etc. They're all playing "oldschool" games. Do they count?
It just seems like such a weird thing to demand. For instance (and I hope I'm not shooting myself in the foot here), are there many communities for "newschool" mmos? Or are they just playing them individually?
Minecraft is taking over our youth.
MMOrpgs removed similar features for being too complex.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
No. He didn't. He is saying if there was a large market there would be some evidence. Evidence could be (but is not limited to) any of the 10 ways he stated. There was no emphasis on one or the other, rather it was that something would exist and he gave several different ways that it could happen.
He is not saying, "if there was a large market there would be a facebook group". He is saying if there was a large market there would be some group somewhere, it could be crowd funding, facebook, twitter, some website... something somewhere.
He did not limit it to one thing, but stated 10 different things, implying that there are many ways there could be evidence for it.
He never said the only evidence was a self-funded game that was only 1 of 10 possible evidences that could be used.
Any one of those thigns might not prove it exists but it would give evidence of it's existence.
edit - now the logical come back to this is the expression an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence which is true. It is also true that the larger a group is the more evidence there is of it. It is also true that typically evidence one way or the other is found whenever people go looking for it, and there are people looking for this. Devs/publishers are constantly looking at the market, gamers are looking at the market, researchers are looking at the market. Thus Occam's Razor applies. With all those people looking, if they can't find it, it likely is not large enough to be found.
On the other hand, maybe they have found it, and the next sandboxish games is in response to it.
I think it's a..I don't like this made up type of person and that's the name I've given them type of thing.
Well the success of dota2 and similar mobas has nothing to do with mmo's.
If mmos were doing good, they would be growing. Prove they are growing. Go on. Where is the massive multiplayer growth?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
http://info.globalcollect.com/Portals/141744/docs/GlobalCollect_Global_MMO_Games_Market_report_03.pdf
But I think we all know you're about to put whatever spin you need to on that info to keep your opinion the way it is.
What are you talking about?
Who is talking about dota2? or other moba's?
We're talking about the evidence, or lack of it, of a large group of people who want old-school mmo's.
Whatever you are talking about has nothing to do with what we are talking about.