Funny how Minecraft can get at least the bare bones right, but you and others can't even give it props. No one else has even gotten close...but hey...
You people have no clue what you want (sand boxers). Any title that comes out will be inaddiquet....
A fair assertion. Whenever something that hasn't been fully flushed out (in this case, most of the MMO community became MMO fans after WoW and thus only know Themeparks), those who look to it for something new can't really tell you what they want. Then their wants differ from veterans who have played games such as Ultima Online.
This goes under the "New IP" ordeal in one light, as it's hard to push something new when there's old faithful over there that's being recreated and or released every three to six months by another development team. With each game that passes itself as having "Sandbox" features, these people get more and more anxious and treat the next with a harsher stance.
This will go back to the "Window of Opportunity" I've mentioned in a different post.
Totally getcha there...why can't we advance the genre from there? Window might have been missed and gone for good....
MInecraft actually has RPG elements. It features HP, equipment with different stats, experience, which is used to enchant items with quite a lot different effects.. It's not that much, yes, but it could easily be expanded. Easier than having such a complex (note that complex != complicated) crafting system and the freedom to shape the world into your average RPG.
A system like UO where usage raises your skill would be very easy to do, especially as everything is already tracked. Alternatively it could be tied to the level as most RPGs do it, but t hat wouldn't fit Minecraft.
Also: Market research etc. is only part of why AAA studios do not make sandbox games. They probably think they won't make the money, but it's not like they are always right. We wouldn't see games closing up or switching the payment model abruptly. Or think of the list of games that were destined to fail even before launch.
I also think that the "correct" (whatever that actually includes) sandbox games would make a hell of a money. Besides Minecraft there is Terraria, which also sold 2.5 million copies. And there are dozen "sandboxy" games like 7 days to die, No more room in hell, Nether, The Stomping Land and who knows how they are all called either released or currently in development with pre-order. They all seem do to rather well in terms of making money, otherwise we would see a decline in those kind of games popping up.
The problem is that creating a new themepark MMO is rather simple, and you can look at a hundred games to see how they've done it. And people will buy it, even if it really doesn't offer anything new.
Making a more sandboxy MMO is more difficult, as there are less examples, and you have to think of how much of the way you'll go. Given that there aren't that many sandbox games/MMOs out there, especially not "AAA" ones, it's more difficult to judge the market share, revenue etc. you''ll get.
So it simply boils down to risk vs. reward: Low risk, closely defined reward vs. medium to high risk with a rather vague reward, ranging from total flop to swimming in money.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
Depends on the individual, but big company dev's know full well what sandbox concepts are, it ain't rocket science. The problem is in technology limitation, budget, demand of publisher to make a profit, and who knows what else that dictate decisions that cause a sandbox less sandboxy.
That seems to be the real issue right there. Professional developers understand these issues, and many indie devs think they understand these issues. This would explain why many indie devs creating a sandbox style game promise the sun and the moon, leading the hopeful MMO gamer to light up and say "See! These guys get it!", but eventually deliver little or nothing once they actually try to do it.
It's not that indie devs get the concept better. It's that they don't have the experience to realize yet why others aren't doing it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Funny how Minecraft can get at least the bare bones right, but you and others can't even give it props. No one else has even gotten close...but hey...
You people have no clue what you want (sand boxers). Any title that comes out will be inaddiquet....
People like to point to Minecraft. If that was the path to go, we'd all be playing Trove right now.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The last Multiplayer Sandbox that was done well was Minecraft (Go figure, an Indie title before it got so popular that there are rumors of it being bought for 2.5 billion). The one before that, Ultima Online (by Origin: We Create Worlds before it became successful and was bought out by EA). Both were successful in their own right; Blizzard chose to copy off of Everquest, and Themeparks became known as WoW Clones.
Making up or quoting a situation that has no relevance to the topic at hand does not prove or disprove anything -- A Track tapes are an old technology, not a subgenre. I can't even fathom why someone would seemingly make an analogy trying to disprove that something was conjecture. It's been proven that genres and subgenres come back into popularity after a time, and the Sandbox Multiplayer genre barely started before people began seeing dollar bills with the themepark market. Now Sandpark is back and is used to Hype -- because seemingly appealing to people.
If mindcraft is what we are using as successfull sanbox MMORPG examples now, then for the love of god ill stick with my themeparks....
Minecraft is an example of a sandbox, yes. It's a barebones one made from a single person, if memory serves. Though a simple idea with simple graphics, turned out to be one of the most profitable games in history. But if we go back to the point and not argue completely different things altogether, the point of the matter is that sandbox, at the moment, equals Hype and profit if done in an amicable fashion. The Sandbox didn't die out as was claim, it was profitable up until WoW was started and people started to make "WoW clones" for a quick buck.
Championing Minecraft as a sandbox MMORPG is like me champion LoL as a themepark....
Now you're just looking for ways to argue. I very specifically said "Multiplayer" when I said minecraft. In addition, you seem to have ignored other text (in addition to only writing one line, targeting a misinterpreted topic). I will no longer be responding to your posts as they aren't (in my opinion) conducive to a proper or thoughtful debate.
My initial comment about sandbox mmorpgs going away due to not being what the masses wanted was responded to with "what about minecraft"....once I point out that minecraft is not an MMO, you think you're off the hook just because you prefaced it with "multiplayer"???
Lets refresh your memory of what this threads about again...
From the OP: Is it just me or do some of the more indie MMO's seem to grab the whole "sandbox" concept much better than some of these big AAA titles that have pushed the word to overhype their game?
And IM the one whos just looking for ways to argue? Im talkaing about MMOs, and you are arguing with me about minecraft...That's literally exactly like me saying Themepark MMOs are fine because LoL has 20 million concurrent players....
Depends on the individual, but big company dev's know full well what sandbox concepts are, it ain't rocket science. The problem is in technology limitation, budget, demand of publisher to make a profit, and who knows what else that dictate decisions that cause a sandbox less sandboxy.
That seems to be the real issue right there. Professional developers understand these issues, and many indie devs think they understand these issues. This would explain why many indie devs creating a sandbox style game promise the sun and the moon, leading the hopeful MMO gamer to light up and say "See! These guys get it!", but eventually deliver little or nothing once they actually try to do it.
It's not that indie devs get the concept better. It's that they don't have the experience to realize yet why others aren't doing it.
Shh, don't speak truth here, they will throw Minecraft in your face in a desperate hail mary attempt to show that sandbox MMORPGs can make money...even though its not an MMORPG...but that doesnt matter though...
Depends on the individual, but big company dev's know full well what sandbox concepts are, it ain't rocket science. The problem is in technology limitation, budget, demand of publisher to make a profit, and who knows what else that dictate decisions that cause a sandbox less sandboxy.
That seems to be the real issue right there. Professional developers understand these issues, and many indie devs think they understand these issues. This would explain why many indie devs creating a sandbox style game promise the sun and the moon, leading the hopeful MMO gamer to light up and say "See! These guys get it!", but eventually deliver little or nothing once they actually try to do it.
It's not that indie devs get the concept better. It's that they don't have the experience to realize yet why others aren't doing it.
Shh, don't speak truth here, they will throw Minecraft in your face in a desperate hail mary attempt to show that sandbox MMORPGs can make money...even though its not an MMORPG...but that doesnt matter though...
Making a functioning sandbox MMO is hard, and you have to understand game design.
A themepark MMO can be made by any moron with a budget. Just copy WoW.
Publishers want to make money, which is why, after 10 years of failed WoW clone after failed WoW clone, they're starting to pull out.
Why did FTP take over? Because there were no MMOs worth spending money for an extended period of time on. If you want to talk logic, the only huge breakout themepark game, is WoW. And the only huge breakout sandbox game, is Minecraft. Both make more money than God. (though at least Minecraft was original and spread through word of mouth, not advertising).
The TRUTH is, we've had years of themeparks merging servers and laying off staff within weeks of launch, whereas in the past it took MMOs years before they even hit their subscriber peak. Numbers and profit are irrelevent here, because neither game design has been as successful as WoW or Minecraft. But there HAVE been tons of successful sandboxes/hardcore games in the past (I guess we're lumping EQ in with sandboxes now?) There haven't really been any break out themeparks since WoW except for maybe GW2? FF14 is still young but benefits from having almost no competition.
Funny how Minecraft can get at least the bare bones right, but you and others can't even give it props. No one else has even gotten close...but hey...
You people have no clue what you want (sand boxers). Any title that comes out will be inaddiquet....
People like to point to Minecraft. If that was the path to go, we'd all be playing Trove right now.
Have you even played Trove and Minecraft? Because no. Trove is to Minecraft what Everquest was to UO. It is less sandboxy.. it shares the Voxelworld.. but that's about it. And after all the Voxel World, or Voxel Technologie is just a means to an end, to be able to create a more interactive, modifyable world, nothing more.
And about Minecraft and Sandboxes. It is actually a good example. Because in a limited scope it got a lot of sandbox elements right. And it is no coincidence that Notch, the developer of Minecraft, worked before on Wurm Online with his partner, which is still developing Wurm. Notch(in my opinion) released, that the scope of Wurm was just to big, to ever get it right as a sandbox and therefore moved on to make Minecraft within a smaller scope, but more sandbox features.
Yeap.. Minecraft is not really Massive, most servers are limited to 50 players some up to 200 players.. and it is not persistent. Nor are a lot of other gameplay elements(like combat) very advanced.. but it got the basics of a sandbox world the best. (Edit: With the exception of economy, which EvE is obv. the number one)
And if you don't talk about Wurm Online, or about Minecraft, you basicly talk about Sandbox games with less or limited sandbox features, because those two excel more or less everything else on sandbox features. And if someone want to name Second Life.. well that one is a sandbox, but it is not a game.. and we talk after all about Sandbox games.
Trove in comparsion to Minecraft increased the world size, increased player numbers, implemented "Quests".. but cut off a lot of the sandbox elements, which made Minecraft great.
The last Multiplayer Sandbox that was done well was Minecraft (Go figure, an Indie title before it got so popular that there are rumors of it being bought for 2.5 billion). The one before that, Ultima Online (by Origin: We Create Worlds before it became successful and was bought out by EA). Both were successful in their own right; Blizzard chose to copy off of Everquest, and Themeparks became known as WoW Clones.
Making up or quoting a situation that has no relevance to the topic at hand does not prove or disprove anything -- A Track tapes are an old technology, not a subgenre. I can't even fathom why someone would seemingly make an analogy trying to disprove that something was conjecture. It's been proven that genres and subgenres come back into popularity after a time, and the Sandbox Multiplayer genre barely started before people began seeing dollar bills with the themepark market. Now Sandpark is back and is used to Hype -- because seemingly appealing to people.
If mindcraft is what we are using as successfull sanbox MMORPG examples now, then for the love of god ill stick with my themeparks....
Minecraft is an example of a sandbox, yes. It's a barebones one made from a single person, if memory serves. Though a simple idea with simple graphics, turned out to be one of the most profitable games in history. But if we go back to the point and not argue completely different things altogether, the point of the matter is that sandbox, at the moment, equals Hype and profit if done in an amicable fashion. The Sandbox didn't die out as was claim, it was profitable up until WoW was started and people started to make "WoW clones" for a quick buck.
Championing Minecraft as a sandbox MMORPG is like me champion LoL as a themepark....
You seem to be judging Minecraft unfairly, and i'm assuming because of it's graphics.
I've never played it, but a lot of my younger cousins have, and i've seen them play it. I've also seen videos of what it is possible in it. It really is a sandbox, where you can create just about anything you can imagine. Is it an MMO? No, but Landmark is similar in nature to minecraft, and i would consider Landmark a sandbox.
Funny how Minecraft can get at least the bare bones right, but you and others can't even give it props. No one else has even gotten close...but hey...
You people have no clue what you want (sand boxers). Any title that comes out will be inaddiquet....
People like to point to Minecraft. If that was the path to go, we'd all be playing Trove right now.
If Trove wasn't so cartoony and childish, more teens and adults would have interest in it. I'm not interested in blocky graphics either. Now imagine a Trove style gameplay that had realism that looked like UO, Lotro, EQ2, or AoC.
Funny how Minecraft can get at least the bare bones right, but you and others can't even give it props. No one else has even gotten close...but hey...
You people have no clue what you want (sand boxers). Any title that comes out will be inaddiquet....
People like to point to Minecraft. If that was the path to go, we'd all be playing Trove right now.
If Trove wasn't so cartoony and childish, more teens and adults would have interest in it. I'm not interested in blocky graphics either. Now imagine a Trove style gameplay that had realism that looked like UO, Lotro, EQ2, or AoC.
Exactly. Now imagine the cost in assets and manpower to do that. LOTRO has what... 1,500 character animations? Not frames... animations. When people spew these silly talking points they never actually walk through how that Minecrafte blockbuster becomes a blockbuster sandbox MMO.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Depends on the individual, but big company dev's know full well what sandbox concepts are, it ain't rocket science. The problem is in technology limitation, budget, demand of publisher to make a profit, and who knows what else that dictate decisions that cause a sandbox less sandboxy.
That seems to be the real issue right there. Professional developers understand these issues, and many indie devs think they understand these issues. This would explain why many indie devs creating a sandbox style game promise the sun and the moon, leading the hopeful MMO gamer to light up and say "See! These guys get it!", but eventually deliver little or nothing once they actually try to do it.
It's not that indie devs get the concept better. It's that they don't have the experience to realize yet why others aren't doing it.
Shh, don't speak truth here, they will throw Minecraft in your face in a desperate hail mary attempt to show that sandbox MMORPGs can make money...even though its not an MMORPG...but that doesnt matter though...
Making a functioning sandbox MMO is hard, and you have to understand game design.
A themepark MMO can be made by any moron with a budget. Just copy WoW.
Publishers want to make money, which is why, after 10 years of failed WoW clone after failed WoW clone, they're starting to pull out.
Why did FTP take over? Because there were no MMOs worth spending money for an extended period of time on. If you want to talk logic, the only huge breakout themepark game, is WoW. And the only huge breakout sandbox game, is Minecraft. Both make more money than God. (though at least Minecraft was original and spread through word of mouth, not advertising).
The TRUTH is, we've had years of themeparks merging servers and laying off staff within weeks of launch, whereas in the past it took MMOs years before they even hit their subscriber peak. Numbers and profit are irrelevent here, because neither game design has been as successful as WoW or Minecraft. But there HAVE been tons of successful sandboxes/hardcore games in the past (I guess we're lumping EQ in with sandboxes now?) There haven't really been any break out themeparks since WoW except for maybe GW2? FF14 is still young but benefits from having almost no competition.
Starting a sentence with "if you want to talk logic" and then making a completely illogical comparison... classic.
By your "logic" Call of Duty, Battlefield and Destiny are "breakout themeparks"
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Eve (currently more subs than TESO AND Wildstar), and Minecraft don't exist, then?
Eve makes money because the limited (yes, I said limited) number of actual active players in the game have multiple accounts. Eve is successful due to the way the game is modeled. To be somebody in Eve, you need to have multiple accounts. So, CCP found a loophole. Grats to them. They still don't have more active unique subs than either TESO or Wildstar.
Since you are stating it as the factual basis for your argument, what are the numbers of active unique subs for TESO and Wildstar?
Please, for the love of god, stop and think before you answer. Let's start this week off with at least one MMORPG.com talking point spewer challenging themselves to a tiny moment of critical thinking. Just one, ffs, and I choose you, Varex. Please don't disappoint.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Pure sandboxes don't make money. AAA titles are run by big companies who like to make money. Pretty simple, when you think about it.
The pure sandbox game is reserved for the indie developers whose main goal is to draw some interest through niche marketing since they don't have the funds to provide that big budget feel in their games.
Pure conjecture.
How can one formulate an opinion on something that hasn't been done in recent years? With all the Themeparks going around and people repeating the phrase "zzz... another themepark", how can one assert to know a true Sandbox of AAA quality would not succeed? In fact, if games are using it just to Hype -- and this amount of people are falling for it -- it only shows that the market is ripe for a high quality and flawlessly executed sandbox game.
Thats like saying A Track tapes would sell like hotcakes, and anyone who says otherwise is talking pure conjecture because they haven't been sold in recent years.....
There is a reason sandboxes stopped being made....and no, its not because "devs got lazy".
The last Multiplayer Sandbox that was done well was Minecraft (Go figure, an Indie title before it got so popular that there are rumors of it being bought for 2.5 billion). The one before that, Ultima Online (by Origin: We Create Worlds before it became successful and was bought out by EA). Both were successful in their own right; Blizzard chose to copy off of Everquest, and Themeparks became known as WoW Clones.
Making up or quoting a situation that has no relevance to the topic at hand does not prove or disprove anything -- "A"(?) Track tapes are an old technology, not a subgenre. I can't even fathom why someone would seemingly make an analogy trying to disprove that something was conjecture. It's been proven that genres and subgenres come back into popularity after a time, and the Sandbox Multiplayer genre barely started before people began seeing dollar bills with the themepark market. Now Sandpark is back and is used to Hype -- because seemingly appealing to people.
Not to mention that 8-Track (which I'm sure is what they meant) actually did have a degree of success. 8-Track players were installed in cars, people had stereos with them, etc. They were eventually replaced with audio cassettes (I'm sure there are people here young enough to not be familiar with that... god I'm old lol). I remember my sister/brothers popping between tracks on their 8-Track players to find a song, or sitting down, myself, and looking at them (at that age, everything was fascinating to me).
They became obsolete for the same other mediums have... something better came along and replaced it.
Which is another reason the 8-Track analogy doesn't apply well to a discussion about MMOs. A better analogy would be CD versus Vinyl. They're both audio media, they both have a degree of popularity, but Vinyl isn't as popular (but seems to be making a comeback). However, they can each co-exist, catering to their particular market.
An Indie dev would be the one more likely to release a true Sandbox MMO, because they're in a better position to take risks and try new things. Big devs are too concerned with following market trends and only doing what's proven to be popular.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
I know this is purely subjective, but IMO even though Wurm might have more sandbox features than most sandbox game doesn't make it better or more fun.
I find Wurm as a whole to be a bad game - in my opinion - because as a whole game I find it pretty dreadful.
But on paper from a feature list it sure is a winner.
I think thats what AAA games get right mostly - as they consider the overall playability, while indie games tend to focus on individual features but lose perspective on the overall game in some cases.
It's funny cause I find all AAA games Dreadful. I've been playing Wurm since 2012.Only mmo that's been able to keep my interest.
Eve (currently more subs than TESO AND Wildstar), and Minecraft don't exist, then?
Eve makes money because the limited (yes, I said limited) number of actual active players in the game have multiple accounts. Eve is successful due to the way the game is modeled. To be somebody in Eve, you need to have multiple accounts. So, CCP found a loophole. Grats to them. They still don't have more active unique subs than either TESO or Wildstar.
Since you are stating it as the factual basis for your argument, what are the numbers of active unique subs for TESO and Wildstar?
Please, for the love of god, stop and think before you answer. Let's start this week off with at least one MMORPG.com talking point spewer challenging themselves to a tiny moment of critical thinking. Just one, ffs, and I choose you, Varex. Please don't disappoint.
Well, in the case of TESO, it's not very difficult at to find out. It's been reported by numerous sites that the number of active subs is over 700k. Over 770k, in fact.
That's already over the amount that is claimed by EVE, even with all of the duplicate subs. Not really that hard to see.
Now, as for Wildstar, no sub info has been released yet, other than Carbine a month after release saying their concurrent users have been 4-5 times higher than during beta. During beta they averaged about 11K concurrent users, which would put them at 50k or so post-launch.
Now, of those concurrent users, how many have multiple subs? How many of the subs are unique?
The Wildstar/Eve comparison is definitely conjecture on my part, particularly since the "4-5K times" reference was by Jeremy Gaffney about a month after launch, and surely it appears as though those numbers aren't as hefty right now. But considering that there are many EVE players with multiple accounts even into the double-digits, I think it's at least reasonable to assume Wildstar has more unique subs. And TESO definitely has more if you believe SuperData, which supposedly pulls their numbers directly from the companies.
That's not to challenge EVE's popularity or success. Any game that has 500k subscribers, whether multiple accounts or not, is doing something right. I'm just challenging DavisFlight's assertion that EVE is more popular than either TESO or Wildstar. In the case of TESO, he's blatantly wrong no matter how you view EVE's subs. I also challenge his assertion made a on another post that WoW was the only "breakout" hit for themepark games. An odd statement to make for someone trying to defend the most successful sandbox game ever, despite the fact there have been numerous themeparks more successful than EVE.
Pure sandboxes don't make money. AAA titles are run by big companies who like to make money. Pretty simple, when you think about it.
The pure sandbox game is reserved for the indie developers whose main goal is to draw some interest through niche marketing since they don't have the funds to provide that big budget feel in their games.
Minecraft, that is all.
You guys really need to get off this Minecraft kick. It's got no RPG element to it at all. It's a building game. You might as well say Diablo or GTA if you are going to pull random games out to prove your point.
Minecraft isn't even close to the same genre as the games we are discussing.
Eve (currently more subs than TESO AND Wildstar), and Minecraft don't exist, then?
Eve makes money because the limited (yes, I said limited) number of actual active players in the game have multiple accounts. Eve is successful due to the way the game is modeled. To be somebody in Eve, you need to have multiple accounts. So, CCP found a loophole. Grats to them. They still don't have more active unique subs than either TESO or Wildstar.
Since you are stating it as the factual basis for your argument, what are the numbers of active unique subs for TESO and Wildstar?
Please, for the love of god, stop and think before you answer. Let's start this week off with at least one MMORPG.com talking point spewer challenging themselves to a tiny moment of critical thinking. Just one, ffs, and I choose you, Varex. Please don't disappoint.
Well, in the case of TESO, it's not very difficult at to find out. It's been reported by numerous sites that the number of active subs is over 700k. Over 770k, in fact.
That's already over the amount that is claimed by EVE, even with all of the duplicate subs. Not really that hard to see.
Now, as for Wildstar, no sub info has been released yet, other than Carbine a month after release saying their concurrent users have been 4-5 times higher than during beta. During beta they averaged about 11K concurrent users, which would put them at 50k or so post-launch.
Now, of those concurrent users, how many have multiple subs? How many of the subs are unique? That's not to challenge Eve's success.
The Wildstar/Eve comparison is definitely conjecture on my part, particularly since the "4-5K times" reference was by Jeremy Gaffney about a month after launch, and surely it appears as though those numbers aren't as hefty right now. But considering that there are many EVE players with multiple accounts even into the double-digits, I think it's at least reasonable to assume Wildstar has more unique subs. And TESO definitely has more if you believe SuperData, which supposedly pulls their numbers directly from the companies.
That's not to challenge EVE's popularity or success. Any game that has 500k subscribers, whether multiple accounts or not, is doing something right. I'm just challenging DavisFlight's assertion that EVE is more popular than either TESO or Wildstar. In the case of TESO, he's blatantly wrong no matter how you view EVE's subs. I also challenge his assertion made a on another post that WoW was the only "breakout" hit for themepark games. An odd statement to make for someone trying to defend the most successful sandbox game ever, despite the fact there have been numerous themeparks more successful than EVE.
Hope that thinking was critical enough for you.
Unsurprisingly, you didn't answer the question at all. Critical enough? Well, since you have not challenged your assumptions, I'll just write it off as too difficult a task for you.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Eve (currently more subs than TESO AND Wildstar), and Minecraft don't exist, then?
Eve makes money because the limited (yes, I said limited) number of actual active players in the game have multiple accounts. Eve is successful due to the way the game is modeled. To be somebody in Eve, you need to have multiple accounts. So, CCP found a loophole. Grats to them. They still don't have more active unique subs than either TESO or Wildstar.
Since you are stating it as the factual basis for your argument, what are the numbers of active unique subs for TESO and Wildstar?
Please, for the love of god, stop and think before you answer. Let's start this week off with at least one MMORPG.com talking point spewer challenging themselves to a tiny moment of critical thinking. Just one, ffs, and I choose you, Varex. Please don't disappoint.
Well, in the case of TESO, it's not very difficult at to find out. It's been reported by numerous sites that the number of active subs is over 700k. Over 770k, in fact.
That's already over the amount that is claimed by EVE, even with all of the duplicate subs. Not really that hard to see.
Now, as for Wildstar, no sub info has been released yet, other than Carbine a month after release saying their concurrent users have been 4-5 times higher than during beta. During beta they averaged about 11K concurrent users, which would put them at 50k or so post-launch.
Now, of those concurrent users, how many have multiple subs? How many of the subs are unique? That's not to challenge Eve's success.
The Wildstar/Eve comparison is definitely conjecture on my part, particularly since the "4-5K times" reference was by Jeremy Gaffney about a month after launch, and surely it appears as though those numbers aren't as hefty right now. But considering that there are many EVE players with multiple accounts even into the double-digits, I think it's at least reasonable to assume Wildstar has more unique subs. And TESO definitely has more if you believe SuperData, which supposedly pulls their numbers directly from the companies.
That's not to challenge EVE's popularity or success. Any game that has 500k subscribers, whether multiple accounts or not, is doing something right. I'm just challenging DavisFlight's assertion that EVE is more popular than either TESO or Wildstar. In the case of TESO, he's blatantly wrong no matter how you view EVE's subs. I also challenge his assertion made a on another post that WoW was the only "breakout" hit for themepark games. An odd statement to make for someone trying to defend the most successful sandbox game ever, despite the fact there have been numerous themeparks more successful than EVE.
Hope that thinking was critical enough for you.
Unsurprisingly, you didn't answer the question at all. Critical enough? Well, since you have not challenged your assumptions, I'll just write it off as too difficult a task for you.
Well, I gave you the reported numbers for TESO. So, I'm not sure what you are going on about. Are you just playing a game of semantics? Challenging my use of the word, "unique" when I talk about subs belonging to different players, as opposed to multiple by one player? Would it make you feel better if I just stated that TESO and Wildstar have more individual, unique players subscribed to those games than EVE?
Pure sandboxes don't make money. AAA titles are run by big companies who like to make money. Pretty simple, when you think about it.
The pure sandbox game is reserved for the indie developers whose main goal is to draw some interest through niche marketing since they don't have the funds to provide that big budget feel in their games.
Minecraft, that is all.
You guys really need to get off this Minecraft kick. It's got no RPG element to it at all. It's a building game. You might as well say Diablo or GTA if you are going to pull random games out to prove your point.
Minecraft isn't even close to the same genre as the games we are discussing.
completely disagree.
Its a minor point you bring up. The root example still applies.
Your example is too much like one guy told me 'Arma 3 cant be used as an example of a game because its a simulator not a game'....please!
when points like that have to be made we know that person lost the arguement.
Originally posted by Atadis Is it just me or do some of the more indie MMO's seem to grab the whole "sandbox" concept much better than some of these big AAA titles that have pushed the word to overhype their game. I mean AA is a good game but it's not a sandbox nor does it feel sandbox to me at all. It's just a huge mess that you get when you put limited sanbox features in a themepark. Not trying to turn this into an AA post but it's just the most recent one that is going to open it's doors soon and before they even open them all the way it's worse than some of the other games I have played with "sandbox" features. I'm looking forward to seeing how the mmo genre makes the whole concept of sandbox and sandpark games into better games but to me some of the more indie devs are managing to do this, or at least seem to be, better than some of these big companies. Just my thoughts on the whole subject though.
yes....They understand the concept better and they are better at making sandbox games than AAA. In fact, in my opinion they are better at making games peroid..full stop.
Do they make money?
I dont know but consider this.
AAA = 200 developers and huge advertising budget
Indie = 1-10 developers and no advertising budget
So clearly an indie can be very successful and make less money than a AAA would need to just break even.
Indie Games are 95% trash (made up statistic alert!). For every Minecraft there are boatloads of games that are travesties.
AAA developers understand "sandbox" just fine, but they don't bother making them. They do, however, love to use the word to sucker you into buying their games.
Of course, we also have the problem that just about no one can agree what a sandbox game should be like.
Originally posted by Rusque Indie Games are 95% trash (made up statistic alert!). For every Minecraft there are boatloads of games that are travesties. AAA developers understand "sandbox" just fine, but they don't bother making them. They do, however, love to use the word to sucker you into buying their games.Of course, we also have the problem that just about no one can agree what a sandbox game should be like.C
could not disagree more. In fact, ALL the indie titles I have played are friggin fantastic and in my mind better than all AAA games of late
Originally posted by Rusque Indie Games are 95% trash (made up statistic alert!). For every Minecraft there are boatloads of games that are travesties. AAA developers understand "sandbox" just fine, but they don't bother making them. They do, however, love to use the word to sucker you into buying their games.Of course, we also have the problem that just about no one can agree what a sandbox game should be like.C
could not disagree more. In fact, ALL the indie titles I have played are friggin fantastic and in my mind better than all AAA games of late
Because you are playing the titles that appeal to you, and you are also not aware of the countless ones that never see the light of day or disappear into obscurity right after release.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Comments
Totally getcha there...why can't we advance the genre from there? Window might have been missed and gone for good....
MInecraft actually has RPG elements. It features HP, equipment with different stats, experience, which is used to enchant items with quite a lot different effects.. It's not that much, yes, but it could easily be expanded. Easier than having such a complex (note that complex != complicated) crafting system and the freedom to shape the world into your average RPG.
A system like UO where usage raises your skill would be very easy to do, especially as everything is already tracked. Alternatively it could be tied to the level as most RPGs do it, but t hat wouldn't fit Minecraft.
Also: Market research etc. is only part of why AAA studios do not make sandbox games. They probably think they won't make the money, but it's not like they are always right. We wouldn't see games closing up or switching the payment model abruptly. Or think of the list of games that were destined to fail even before launch.
I also think that the "correct" (whatever that actually includes) sandbox games would make a hell of a money. Besides Minecraft there is Terraria, which also sold 2.5 million copies. And there are dozen "sandboxy" games like 7 days to die, No more room in hell, Nether, The Stomping Land and who knows how they are all called either released or currently in development with pre-order. They all seem do to rather well in terms of making money, otherwise we would see a decline in those kind of games popping up.
The problem is that creating a new themepark MMO is rather simple, and you can look at a hundred games to see how they've done it. And people will buy it, even if it really doesn't offer anything new.
Making a more sandboxy MMO is more difficult, as there are less examples, and you have to think of how much of the way you'll go. Given that there aren't that many sandbox games/MMOs out there, especially not "AAA" ones, it's more difficult to judge the market share, revenue etc. you''ll get.
So it simply boils down to risk vs. reward: Low risk, closely defined reward vs. medium to high risk with a rather vague reward, ranging from total flop to swimming in money.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high
And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll
Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde
And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
That seems to be the real issue right there. Professional developers understand these issues, and many indie devs think they understand these issues. This would explain why many indie devs creating a sandbox style game promise the sun and the moon, leading the hopeful MMO gamer to light up and say "See! These guys get it!", but eventually deliver little or nothing once they actually try to do it.
It's not that indie devs get the concept better. It's that they don't have the experience to realize yet why others aren't doing it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
People like to point to Minecraft. If that was the path to go, we'd all be playing Trove right now.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
My initial comment about sandbox mmorpgs going away due to not being what the masses wanted was responded to with "what about minecraft"....once I point out that minecraft is not an MMO, you think you're off the hook just because you prefaced it with "multiplayer"???
Lets refresh your memory of what this threads about again...
From the OP: Is it just me or do some of the more indie MMO's seem to grab the whole "sandbox" concept much better than some of these big AAA titles that have pushed the word to overhype their game?
And IM the one whos just looking for ways to argue? Im talkaing about MMOs, and you are arguing with me about minecraft...That's literally exactly like me saying Themepark MMOs are fine because LoL has 20 million concurrent players....
Shh, don't speak truth here, they will throw Minecraft in your face in a desperate hail mary attempt to show that sandbox MMORPGs can make money...even though its not an MMORPG...but that doesnt matter though...
Making a functioning sandbox MMO is hard, and you have to understand game design.
A themepark MMO can be made by any moron with a budget. Just copy WoW.
Publishers want to make money, which is why, after 10 years of failed WoW clone after failed WoW clone, they're starting to pull out.
Why did FTP take over? Because there were no MMOs worth spending money for an extended period of time on. If you want to talk logic, the only huge breakout themepark game, is WoW. And the only huge breakout sandbox game, is Minecraft. Both make more money than God. (though at least Minecraft was original and spread through word of mouth, not advertising).
The TRUTH is, we've had years of themeparks merging servers and laying off staff within weeks of launch, whereas in the past it took MMOs years before they even hit their subscriber peak. Numbers and profit are irrelevent here, because neither game design has been as successful as WoW or Minecraft. But there HAVE been tons of successful sandboxes/hardcore games in the past (I guess we're lumping EQ in with sandboxes now?) There haven't really been any break out themeparks since WoW except for maybe GW2? FF14 is still young but benefits from having almost no competition.
Have you even played Trove and Minecraft? Because no. Trove is to Minecraft what Everquest was to UO. It is less sandboxy.. it shares the Voxelworld.. but that's about it. And after all the Voxel World, or Voxel Technologie is just a means to an end, to be able to create a more interactive, modifyable world, nothing more.
And about Minecraft and Sandboxes. It is actually a good example. Because in a limited scope it got a lot of sandbox elements right. And it is no coincidence that Notch, the developer of Minecraft, worked before on Wurm Online with his partner, which is still developing Wurm. Notch(in my opinion) released, that the scope of Wurm was just to big, to ever get it right as a sandbox and therefore moved on to make Minecraft within a smaller scope, but more sandbox features.
Yeap.. Minecraft is not really Massive, most servers are limited to 50 players some up to 200 players.. and it is not persistent. Nor are a lot of other gameplay elements(like combat) very advanced.. but it got the basics of a sandbox world the best. (Edit: With the exception of economy, which EvE is obv. the number one)
And if you don't talk about Wurm Online, or about Minecraft, you basicly talk about Sandbox games with less or limited sandbox features, because those two excel more or less everything else on sandbox features. And if someone want to name Second Life.. well that one is a sandbox, but it is not a game.. and we talk after all about Sandbox games.
Trove in comparsion to Minecraft increased the world size, increased player numbers, implemented "Quests".. but cut off a lot of the sandbox elements, which made Minecraft great.
You seem to be judging Minecraft unfairly, and i'm assuming because of it's graphics.
I've never played it, but a lot of my younger cousins have, and i've seen them play it. I've also seen videos of what it is possible in it. It really is a sandbox, where you can create just about anything you can imagine. Is it an MMO? No, but Landmark is similar in nature to minecraft, and i would consider Landmark a sandbox.
If Trove wasn't so cartoony and childish, more teens and adults would have interest in it. I'm not interested in blocky graphics either. Now imagine a Trove style gameplay that had realism that looked like UO, Lotro, EQ2, or AoC.
Exactly. Now imagine the cost in assets and manpower to do that. LOTRO has what... 1,500 character animations? Not frames... animations. When people spew these silly talking points they never actually walk through how that Minecrafte blockbuster becomes a blockbuster sandbox MMO.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Starting a sentence with "if you want to talk logic" and then making a completely illogical comparison... classic.
By your "logic" Call of Duty, Battlefield and Destiny are "breakout themeparks"
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Since you are stating it as the factual basis for your argument, what are the numbers of active unique subs for TESO and Wildstar?
Please, for the love of god, stop and think before you answer. Let's start this week off with at least one MMORPG.com talking point spewer challenging themselves to a tiny moment of critical thinking. Just one, ffs, and I choose you, Varex. Please don't disappoint.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Not to mention that 8-Track (which I'm sure is what they meant) actually did have a degree of success. 8-Track players were installed in cars, people had stereos with them, etc. They were eventually replaced with audio cassettes (I'm sure there are people here young enough to not be familiar with that... god I'm old lol). I remember my sister/brothers popping between tracks on their 8-Track players to find a song, or sitting down, myself, and looking at them (at that age, everything was fascinating to me).
They became obsolete for the same other mediums have... something better came along and replaced it.
Which is another reason the 8-Track analogy doesn't apply well to a discussion about MMOs. A better analogy would be CD versus Vinyl. They're both audio media, they both have a degree of popularity, but Vinyl isn't as popular (but seems to be making a comeback). However, they can each co-exist, catering to their particular market.
An Indie dev would be the one more likely to release a true Sandbox MMO, because they're in a better position to take risks and try new things. Big devs are too concerned with following market trends and only doing what's proven to be popular.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Well, in the case of TESO, it's not very difficult at to find out. It's been reported by numerous sites that the number of active subs is over 700k. Over 770k, in fact.
http://www.vg247.com/2014/07/18/elder-scrolls-online-subscription-numbers/
That's already over the amount that is claimed by EVE, even with all of the duplicate subs. Not really that hard to see.
Now, as for Wildstar, no sub info has been released yet, other than Carbine a month after release saying their concurrent users have been 4-5 times higher than during beta. During beta they averaged about 11K concurrent users, which would put them at 50k or so post-launch.
EVE generally has about 30k concurrent users.
http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility
Now, of those concurrent users, how many have multiple subs? How many of the subs are unique?
The Wildstar/Eve comparison is definitely conjecture on my part, particularly since the "4-5K times" reference was by Jeremy Gaffney about a month after launch, and surely it appears as though those numbers aren't as hefty right now. But considering that there are many EVE players with multiple accounts even into the double-digits, I think it's at least reasonable to assume Wildstar has more unique subs. And TESO definitely has more if you believe SuperData, which supposedly pulls their numbers directly from the companies.
That's not to challenge EVE's popularity or success. Any game that has 500k subscribers, whether multiple accounts or not, is doing something right. I'm just challenging DavisFlight's assertion that EVE is more popular than either TESO or Wildstar. In the case of TESO, he's blatantly wrong no matter how you view EVE's subs. I also challenge his assertion made a on another post that WoW was the only "breakout" hit for themepark games. An odd statement to make for someone trying to defend the most successful sandbox game ever, despite the fact there have been numerous themeparks more successful than EVE.
Hope that thinking was critical enough for you.
You guys really need to get off this Minecraft kick. It's got no RPG element to it at all. It's a building game. You might as well say Diablo or GTA if you are going to pull random games out to prove your point.
Minecraft isn't even close to the same genre as the games we are discussing.
Unsurprisingly, you didn't answer the question at all. Critical enough? Well, since you have not challenged your assumptions, I'll just write it off as too difficult a task for you.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Well, I gave you the reported numbers for TESO. So, I'm not sure what you are going on about. Are you just playing a game of semantics? Challenging my use of the word, "unique" when I talk about subs belonging to different players, as opposed to multiple by one player? Would it make you feel better if I just stated that TESO and Wildstar have more individual, unique players subscribed to those games than EVE?
completely disagree.
Its a minor point you bring up. The root example still applies.
Your example is too much like one guy told me 'Arma 3 cant be used as an example of a game because its a simulator not a game'....please!
when points like that have to be made we know that person lost the arguement.
yes....They understand the concept better and they are better at making sandbox games than AAA. In fact, in my opinion they are better at making games peroid..full stop.
Do they make money?
I dont know but consider this.
AAA = 200 developers and huge advertising budget
Indie = 1-10 developers and no advertising budget
So clearly an indie can be very successful and make less money than a AAA would need to just break even.
Indie Games are 95% trash (made up statistic alert!). For every Minecraft there are boatloads of games that are travesties.
AAA developers understand "sandbox" just fine, but they don't bother making them. They do, however, love to use the word to sucker you into buying their games.
Of course, we also have the problem that just about no one can agree what a sandbox game should be like.
could not disagree more. In fact, ALL the indie titles I have played are friggin fantastic and in my mind better than all AAA games of late
Because you are playing the titles that appeal to you, and you are also not aware of the countless ones that never see the light of day or disappear into obscurity right after release.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre