This thread further demonstrates what is the real issue games are facing today. A lot saying here you can't have this or that in a game, you can't please 50 mil people playing one thing, the game would require a lot of HD space, bla bla bla..
Fact is there is no limit how complex the game can be (especially with todays technology). Richard Garriott and his team managed to develop a non instanced open virtual world with more skills/professions and things one can do within it than almost anything else that has come out in the next 15 years (out of respect to SWG and imagine the type of hardware they had in 1997)
Fact is only the mind is the limit when it comes to creativity in a game. That is why how limited the game is a direct reflection of the limited mind, manpower and time that is available to those in charge of it.
I dunno about the rest here, but I'm apparently a rare breed since those who believe small projects work better, obvioslly it didn't work for me since 6 days from now I'll make a record "has not spent $ on a new game in the last 3 years", and since it takes 1-2 years at least to develop a complex game with small teams like this, it means that whatever they've been planning, doing in last 4-5 years failed to take $ from my wallet.
If I'm ever going to play a game it has to be something more than what I've already played in the last 22 years. On other hand I'm more than certain I would gladly play something truly epic and one of a kind and pay top $ for it. I would definetely be content with it regardless of what the game is about. It would offer a lot of ways one can play it and that's something not many games can do it with the way they are developed.
It depends. If properly split into groups each with their individual focus, with solid project management, you'd most likely end up with a high quality MMO. However, there is no guarantee that it'll be well received or not, as MMO community is rather fickle at times.
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed: And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!" ~Lord George Gordon Byron
Well if looking at it realistically theres a few big issues.
1.) Design principals will change. For example, say in the past Quests were hailed as being a vastly superior form of playing then Grinding on mobs. Today, Quests are often shunned or disliked by players and general not enjoyed very much and a desire for more options are wanted by players.
2.) Graphics. Probably the biggest issue. In a games development cycle, its graphics often are 'dated', never able to be released with the 'best of the best' graphic style as technology improves during the say 4 year development cycle. 10 Years would mean even bigger leaps. Lets face it, its a sad truth but a lot of people are Graphics > Gameplay. A sad thing to know people can be so blind, but it does play a large factor, so a game developed over 10 years would likely have dated graphics at its launch. Which leads to another issue...
3.) Keeping it 'up to date' and 'modern' would likely cause the game to need remake after remake. This would likely mean having to redo their work, trashing the code and reworking it up. So despite having a 10 year project, you might be playing a 'game' that the code is only 2-4 years old.
As the saying goes, you can't have nine women create a baby in one month.
An enormous development team could let you have enormous amounts of artwork, sound, and content. And a 10 TB download to install the game.
But scaling programming to use huge numbers of people is rather trickier. You could easily end up with programmers spending more time fighting with each other than doing anything productive. Trying to get so many programming one game at once would probably mean that you end up with more than a few who lack the necessary talent to be productive and end up doing more harm than good.
There's also the problem that many times, you have to make a decision between mutually exclusive things. Some people want a game to have free for all PVP. Others want to be able to PVE in peace without getting attacked by other players. You can't please both in the same game--but you can in two separate games, one built for each type of player. The same goes for many other design decisions.
Is a game great because it has a huge team of developers, or is it great because the people making the decisions made the right ones ?
With 50,000 minds its difficult to make a wrong decision. Even if you bring the right decisions, you would still lack the time, resources to execute em properly and on top your anonymity would seal the deal for your product to ever gain attention to the global market.
There is a reason why ants, bees and so on work together. Look at U.S, Russia, China, and now Europe (united for a reason)
Contries do not unite without a good reason and that good reason is so they can feel secure, to bring their own decisions and to deliver the best technologies, movies and so on to the global market.
This is wrong on so many levels. If you have ever managed, created, or been in charge of anything, you would know 99% of the people are just plain dumb. A room full of monkeys would 'not' create Shakespeare (despite how that saying goes). All you would get is people reinforcing the wrong decision, because the idiots would always outweigh that one person who actually has half a clue about what to do. That's 49,999 stupid people making the decisions, while the one person who actually has vision gets voted out.
Using ants and bees is a terrible analogy. Ants and bee's are all led by one queen, they just do what they are told. I'm not sure if you are trying to troll here.
The simple conclusion to this is that more is not better.
Can live alone well? Are you joking or being serious with $2500 a month is solid income even for a single person? Is it decent? Sure its decent, but its not really any amount to be proud of by any means. I mean you have states like California to where making 30,000 is poverty while others its a decent living, but not compared to the cost of getting the degree to become a developer is.
Not to mention over 10 years, all those "single" employees most likely will be married with kids. Now that income is requiring government assistance.
$2500 a month to live alone is plenty. I've been doing it for far less for the past 2 years. I haven't driven a BMW or partied on yachts these two years, but I've been happy.
As the saying goes, you can't have nine women create a baby in one month.
An enormous development team could let you have enormous amounts of artwork, sound, and content. And a 10 TB download to install the game.
But scaling programming to use huge numbers of people is rather trickier. You could easily end up with programmers spending more time fighting with each other than doing anything productive. Trying to get so many programming one game at once would probably mean that you end up with more than a few who lack the necessary talent to be productive and end up doing more harm than good.
There's also the problem that many times, you have to make a decision between mutually exclusive things. Some people want a game to have free for all PVP. Others want to be able to PVE in peace without getting attacked by other players. You can't please both in the same game--but you can in two separate games, one built for each type of player. The same goes for many other design decisions.
Thanks for insight.
Collaborating can't cater to groups, they can only make or identify the most potent fix possible from the ingredients given. In my opinion.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
There is no perfect game. I been playing MMO's from 99' to now. I hate PVP in all those years of gaming I probably killed 10 other players that includes things like battle grounds and what now. I always enjoyed challenging PVE. Just my style. I know to tons of other games that they love PVP and hate PVE so we could never agree on a game that's perfect. Because balancing for PVP and PVE is very different so making a perfect game can't balance both and that will always be a problem. I think less people making a game that is focused would be better then a ton of people working on one game were no one can agree.
This thread further demonstrates what is the real issue games are facing today. A lot saying here you can't have this or that in a game, you can't please 50 mil people playing one thing, the game would require a lot of HD space, bla bla bla..
Fact is there is no limit how complex the game can be (especially with todays technology). Richard Garriott and his team managed to develop a non instanced open virtual world with more skills/professions and things one can do within it than almost anything else that has come out in the next 15 years (out of respect to SWG and imagine the type of hardware they had in 1997)
I think you get it all wrong. There is a reason no one bash Eve. Because 9/10 people won't even give it more than 1 hour. So they never played enough to bash it. And infact 500k players isn't large enough people to bother to bash them unlike wow.
You'll be surprised how many people hated UO. And how many people won't even bother to give it a try because of its death penalty.
And ask yourself what Richard Garriott did at his later life. There is a reason why Symphony of the night have the best gameplay out of all castlevania games. Because it is 2D. It'll take alot more budget to make a 3D game with that kind of freedom.
Originally posted by Vrika In the MMO that would be developed by 50 000 persons for 10 years straight:
-The game would be delivered on a truck because it would need more than 1000 DVDs. Installation would take some weeks of non-stop DVD switching
-The introduction video would tell you a story about how you're a jedi, in prehistoric times, on alien planet, fighting against zombie nazis, using superpowers you gain from Earth's sun, in order to stop the terrorist threat on white house.
-In order to go forward you'd have to open a menu and select from 25 different modes of proceeding like "crawl forward", "dash forward", or "dive headfirst forward". Walking would not be an option because of some kind of communication error between the devs.
-Afterwards the game would crash due to it being so complex that any change causes about 100 bugs.
You would get this.
I just watched this. Ya, this is what PC gamers would probably make. A Hardcore Sim. Hehe.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
You could work on 10 mmo's at once. Each crafted perfectly suited for those who are playing . Milking each one for money all the way. Then all meet in a Virtual Sim to shape and control. Destroy and build, Adding and more area and toys as expansions.
Blowing minds instead chances.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I think it would be one heck of a messy disaster. The entire game would likely be highly inconsistent and poorly implemented. But it would be big, real big
And it was finally launched in 2015, would those 50,000 see more $ in their pockets from it in the long run over what they delivered individually between 2005-2015?
If that game was delivered, just think about the perffection of polish, complexity, features, music, innovations, possibilities, security and so on it would offer and how much people would be willing to pay to experience it...
Imagine 50 million players (minimum) paying $30 a month = 1.5 billion PROFIT PER MONTH = 18 billion a year (minus taxes + box sales, cash shop etc) = 20 bil a year for 50,000 people, which means each one would earn $400,000 per year.
Bottom line TEAMWORK PAYS OFF and I went with the minimum $30. Every single one of those 50,000 developing that game over the 10 years would be receiving 1 million estimated per year for the next 10-20 years.
Fact is there are 1.2 billion gamers and I only considered 50 mil...And seriosly do you think anyone would even remotely come close to compete with something being developed by 50,000 people for 10 years straight?
Richer or poorer one thing is certain. We would all get to experience A TRUE EPIC, ONE OF A KIND GAME that we could enjoy until the end of our lifetime...
Just imagine, having 50,000 minds focused on one single project working together..there would be no place for risks and even if risks occured they would be immediatly eliminated.
I disagree, nothing would get done, many fights would ensue... too many people would have input and ideas and the game would be a disaster. This is just my opinion of course.
"The King and the Pawn return to the same box at the end of the game"
50,000 people on a single project? I'd think that such a project would die a quick and horrible death under its own administrative nightmares. Communication would be horrific, making it next to impossible to schedule dependent task steps. And as others have already pointed out, even finding a consensus agreement on fundamental things like Fantasy or SF; Sandbox or Themepark; or the color of egg yolks in this fictional world would be nearly impossible. And let's not even discuss the practicality of trying to divide any profits based on 50,000 individual budgets managed by 50,000 individual people. And who owned this particular mess or who is legally liable for the mistakes when the lawsuits begin is another Gordian knot I'd prefer to avoid thinking about.
There isn't a poll option that even remotely matches my opinion on the possibility of such an effort producing any kind of product. So, I vote to preserve what sanity I have left, and didn't vote at all.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
As the saying goes, you can't have nine women create a baby in one month.
It's funny because it's true. What is also funny is this is something well known going back into the 70s. IRRC, the Mythical Man-Month was first published in 1975 and dealt with this issue. The subject has been well studied.
OP, it won't produce the results you think it will.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I dunno about the rest here, but I'm apparently a rare breed since those who believe small projects work better, obvioslly it didn't work for me since 6 days from now I'll make a record "has not spent $ on a new game in the last 3 years", and since it takes 1-2 years at least to develop a complex game with small teams like this, it means that whatever they've been planning, doing in last 4-5 years failed to take $ from my wallet.
You know 6.5 billion people on earth can say the same thing....yet some how the industry goes on. That same industry that fails every day on this forum has never been making more money or had more people playing it.
Originally posted by nilden You can't get 10 people on this forum to agree with what they would want in a perfect MMO what makes you think you could get 50,000 to agree on any mechanic or feature at all? I think you just painted the picture for development hell to be blunt.
It would be hell on earth, as the bickering and backbiting over it all would crush interest in time.
Smaller teams are best, as the workers will get to know each other well and how they work. Corporations, for example, aren't necessary more efficient in producing a product, as larger a group becomes the politics involved also increases (and wherever there's politics there's inefficiency). Gamers have seen the infighting from EA and Activision-Blizzard when teams simply resigned and started their own companies for more creative freedom, and profit.
I'd be impressed if you could even find 10k people willing to fill out a survey about what their ideal MMO would be, much less 50k who would contribute something to creating one.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
Originally posted by exdeathbr top 3 biggest music labels tries to do that and they fail as hard as possible.
That sounds like an interesting story - can you link an article or blog or something about how it failed?
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
Comments
This thread further demonstrates what is the real issue games are facing today. A lot saying here you can't have this or that in a game, you can't please 50 mil people playing one thing, the game would require a lot of HD space, bla bla bla..
Fact is there is no limit how complex the game can be (especially with todays technology). Richard Garriott and his team managed to develop a non instanced open virtual world with more skills/professions and things one can do within it than almost anything else that has come out in the next 15 years (out of respect to SWG and imagine the type of hardware they had in 1997)
Fact is only the mind is the limit when it comes to creativity in a game. That is why how limited the game is a direct reflection of the limited mind, manpower and time that is available to those in charge of it.
I dunno about the rest here, but I'm apparently a rare breed since those who believe small projects work better, obvioslly it didn't work for me since 6 days from now I'll make a record "has not spent $ on a new game in the last 3 years", and since it takes 1-2 years at least to develop a complex game with small teams like this, it means that whatever they've been planning, doing in last 4-5 years failed to take $ from my wallet.
If I'm ever going to play a game it has to be something more than what I've already played in the last 22 years. On other hand I'm more than certain I would gladly play something truly epic and one of a kind and pay top $ for it. I would definetely be content with it regardless of what the game is about. It would offer a lot of ways one can play it and that's something not many games can do it with the way they are developed.
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,
And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed:
And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill,
And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!"
~Lord George Gordon Byron
Well if looking at it realistically theres a few big issues.
1.) Design principals will change. For example, say in the past Quests were hailed as being a vastly superior form of playing then Grinding on mobs. Today, Quests are often shunned or disliked by players and general not enjoyed very much and a desire for more options are wanted by players.
2.) Graphics. Probably the biggest issue. In a games development cycle, its graphics often are 'dated', never able to be released with the 'best of the best' graphic style as technology improves during the say 4 year development cycle. 10 Years would mean even bigger leaps. Lets face it, its a sad truth but a lot of people are Graphics > Gameplay. A sad thing to know people can be so blind, but it does play a large factor, so a game developed over 10 years would likely have dated graphics at its launch. Which leads to another issue...
3.) Keeping it 'up to date' and 'modern' would likely cause the game to need remake after remake. This would likely mean having to redo their work, trashing the code and reworking it up. So despite having a 10 year project, you might be playing a 'game' that the code is only 2-4 years old.
As the saying goes, you can't have nine women create a baby in one month.
An enormous development team could let you have enormous amounts of artwork, sound, and content. And a 10 TB download to install the game.
But scaling programming to use huge numbers of people is rather trickier. You could easily end up with programmers spending more time fighting with each other than doing anything productive. Trying to get so many programming one game at once would probably mean that you end up with more than a few who lack the necessary talent to be productive and end up doing more harm than good.
There's also the problem that many times, you have to make a decision between mutually exclusive things. Some people want a game to have free for all PVP. Others want to be able to PVE in peace without getting attacked by other players. You can't please both in the same game--but you can in two separate games, one built for each type of player. The same goes for many other design decisions.
This is wrong on so many levels. If you have ever managed, created, or been in charge of anything, you would know 99% of the people are just plain dumb. A room full of monkeys would 'not' create Shakespeare (despite how that saying goes). All you would get is people reinforcing the wrong decision, because the idiots would always outweigh that one person who actually has half a clue about what to do. That's 49,999 stupid people making the decisions, while the one person who actually has vision gets voted out.
Using ants and bees is a terrible analogy. Ants and bee's are all led by one queen, they just do what they are told. I'm not sure if you are trying to troll here.
The simple conclusion to this is that more is not better.
$2500 a month to live alone is plenty. I've been doing it for far less for the past 2 years. I haven't driven a BMW or partied on yachts these two years, but I've been happy.
Thanks for insight.
Collaborating can't cater to groups, they can only make or identify the most potent fix possible from the ingredients given. In my opinion.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I think you get it all wrong. There is a reason no one bash Eve. Because 9/10 people won't even give it more than 1 hour. So they never played enough to bash it. And infact 500k players isn't large enough people to bother to bash them unlike wow.
You'll be surprised how many people hated UO. And how many people won't even bother to give it a try because of its death penalty.
And ask yourself what Richard Garriott did at his later life. There is a reason why Symphony of the night have the best gameplay out of all castlevania games. Because it is 2D. It'll take alot more budget to make a 3D game with that kind of freedom.
I just watched this. Ya, this is what PC gamers would probably make. A Hardcore Sim. Hehe.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
You could work on 10 mmo's at once. Each crafted perfectly suited for those who are playing . Milking each one for money all the way. Then all meet in a Virtual Sim to shape and control. Destroy and build, Adding and more area and toys as expansions.
Blowing minds instead chances.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I disagree, nothing would get done, many fights would ensue... too many people would have input and ideas and the game would be a disaster. This is just my opinion of course.
50,000 people on a single project? I'd think that such a project would die a quick and horrible death under its own administrative nightmares. Communication would be horrific, making it next to impossible to schedule dependent task steps. And as others have already pointed out, even finding a consensus agreement on fundamental things like Fantasy or SF; Sandbox or Themepark; or the color of egg yolks in this fictional world would be nearly impossible. And let's not even discuss the practicality of trying to divide any profits based on 50,000 individual budgets managed by 50,000 individual people. And who owned this particular mess or who is legally liable for the mistakes when the lawsuits begin is another Gordian knot I'd prefer to avoid thinking about.
There isn't a poll option that even remotely matches my opinion on the possibility of such an effort producing any kind of product. So, I vote to preserve what sanity I have left, and didn't vote at all.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
It's funny because it's true. What is also funny is this is something well known going back into the 70s. IRRC, the Mythical Man-Month was first published in 1975 and dealt with this issue. The subject has been well studied.
OP, it won't produce the results you think it will.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
You know 6.5 billion people on earth can say the same thing....yet some how the industry goes on. That same industry that fails every day on this forum has never been making more money or had more people playing it.
So much for " facts"
It would be hell on earth, as the bickering and backbiting over it all would crush interest in time.
Smaller teams are best, as the workers will get to know each other well and how they work. Corporations, for example, aren't necessary more efficient in producing a product, as larger a group becomes the politics involved also increases (and wherever there's politics there's inefficiency). Gamers have seen the infighting from EA and Activision-Blizzard when teams simply resigned and started their own companies for more creative freedom, and profit.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
That sounds like an interesting story - can you link an article or blog or something about how it failed?