any mmo currently in development that does NOT support or have VR heavily in mind is a dead stick anyways. Besides that, there was already controversy over funds from kickstarter over Pantheon... let them produce a game THEN get paid - you know, like how the world works. I don't get paid on a Monday for the work I will be (or might be) doing this week.
Binding a couple of tiny LCD to my face with a pair of goggles isn't going to make the current crop of MMOs any better. The tenets and features of Pantheon stand to rekindle my interest in MMOs much more than gimmicks like what people are currently calling VR.
you have no idea what you are talking about... calling VR a gimmick proves it. VR is going to define computing in the coming years - but hey if you want to play pantheon on your 2d monitor while the rest of us have moved on to VR, keep flying your gimmick flag.
I don't think it's going to define computing per se, but it is really cool, and it adds to immersion in my opinion -- you feel more that you're in the game. I'm pretty excited about it in general. Will we support it at some point in Pantheon? I certainly hope so, but it's way too early to commit.
If I was to guess, engines like Unity will probably offer a VR FP camera mode stock in the coming years. Hopefully games currently created in unity won't be very hard to adapt.
I feel the hardest thing to adapt for VR in a MMORPG will be the control system, specially if the game is not designed for VR on it's release.
Sadly VR will end up being for casual gamers more then anything, kind of like the Wii. Even Mario 64 made me nauseous after playing it an hour or two because of all the camera angles and such. Did anyone play Virtual Boy? 1 hour after staring in that made anyone want to quit gaming.
VR will always be held back by one simple truth, the nausea of extended use.
Sadly VR will end up being for casual gamers more then anything, kind of like the Wii. Even Mario 64 made me nauseous after playing it an hour or two because of all the camera angles and such. Did anyone play Virtual Boy? 1 hour after staring in that made anyone want to quit gaming.
VR will always be held back by one simple truth, the nausea of extended use.
not true mate, read up about it .. both oculus and vive have nailed the sickness aspect of VR. Just have to stick within the best practice guidelines when creating your game. Also technically, the low fps/refresh rates was a limitation and made you sick - not so with the new stuff. How can you compare mario 64 and virtual boy to Oculus? haha
What I gathered from Brad's posts is that he and his team is going to move back to the foundations of the genre and take a different path compared to MMO's post WoW. They're going to use the game mechanics which were discarded to help streamline and casualise MMO's, for example open world dungeons, camping and the mechanics which promoted socialisation and community and improve these mechanics for a modern audience. Brad appears to understand that just moving back to EQ's time consuming game mechanics is not going to work this day and age if he wants a decent in game population. I applaud him and his team for wanting to bring back the sense of world into the MMO genre.
Can he achieve and deliver on his promises is a different matter but I've got my fingers crossed that this time he will be able to pull it off.
Your post does a good job of capturing our overall studio vision, and certainly our design direction with Pantheon. It inspires me to share two things:
(1) Brad and I are trying to do something ambitious and extremely challenging with Pantheon. We have an opportunity to create and design an MMORPG that answers a nearly decade-long absence: embracing the "stickiest" gameplay elements of the 1st generation that have been lost in modern game design. But this is not a paint-by-numbers endeavor; you can't just drag and drop an EverQuest design shell in the modern era and expect to hit a home run. If we're honest, even the most die hard EverQuest/Vanguard fans are looking for something more - not different, but more - and I like to call that an evolution.
What I'm talking about is having a meaningful premise. Why else make an MMORPG when there are so many right now and dozens more to come over the next few years? It's because we recognize an opportunity to be a forerunner, to create something fresh and do it best, to carve out a meaningful place in this modern era of MMOs. That something is creating a Hardcore MMORPG, not a "me too" game, but re-imagining and evolving the paradigms that birthed the genre - and in doing so, we want to revolutionize the way challenge, immersion and community are experienced in MMORPGs.
So how do you do that? I think it starts with perspective. I usually describe myself as someone who has been "jaded into relevance". I've been a gamer since I was 4 years old, and I have been obsessed with MMORPGs since I was 14, starting with UO and EverQuest. I have played nearly every commercial & indie MMO released since ~1997, but in 2013 I stopped cold for two reasons:
- I was tired of consuming and I wanted to start creating.
- I realized that everything I had been playing for the last 10 years felt like the same fundamental experience, over and over again, and I fell out of love with the genre.
So now I'm jaded, but that is exactly what drives me: I want to design MMORPGs that make me fall in love with them again, and hopefully many other people as well. This is a glimpse into my vision, and I've partnered it with Brad's, which brings us to...
(2) How do you revitalize 1st generation game design while keeping pace with the modern paradigms of online gaming? Or, how do you avoid creating a clone, but not fixing what isn't broken? Or perhaps most simply, how do you create an MMORPG that people want to play?
I think you have to start with a crystal clear, vetted and fortified vision, which is what Buccaneer captured in his post.
We are going back to the foundations of the genre, identifying the right paradigms, evolving-refining-solidifying them, and using them to carve a new path.
Not only is this premise ambitious, challenging and risky - but it takes a unique visionary recipe to see the right ways forward, especially in the small details of design and implementation. So Brad and I leverage our differences and use them to our advantage. Brad brings the old guard: he is a seasoned veteran of the industry who pioneered the paradigms we are seeking to recapture. I bring the new guard: young and hungry, frustrated with the sameness of MMORPGs and intent on finding the revolutionary recipe for Pantheon. We leverage this tension. Every premise point or design direction for Pantheon is hammered out on this visionary forge, and sparks often fly between us, but it's necessary to carve out the right direction and create a great game.
The next step will be to start unveiling some of these evolved systems - can't wait.
Creative Director, Lead Game Designer | Visionary Realms, Inc.
Visit the official website of Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen at www.pantheonmmo.com!
Your post does a good job of capturing our overall studio vision, and certainly our design direction with Pantheon. It inspires me to share two things:
(1) Brad and I are trying to do something ambitious and extremely challenging with Pantheon. We have an opportunity to create and design an MMORPG that answers a nearly decade-long absence: embracing the "stickiest" gameplay elements of the 1st generation that have been lost in modern game design. But this is not a paint-by-numbers endeavor; you can't just drag and drop an EverQuest design shell in the modern era and expect to hit a home run. If we're honest, even the most die hard EverQuest/Vanguard fans are looking for something more - not different, but more - and I like to call that an evolution.
What I'm talking about is having a meaningful premise. Why else make an MMORPG when there are so many right now and dozens more to come over the next few years? It's because we recognize an opportunity to be a forerunner, to create something fresh and do it best, to carve out a meaningful place in this modern era of MMOs. That something is creating a Hardcore MMORPG, not a "me too" game, but re-imagining and evolving the paradigms that birthed the genre - and in doing so, we want to revolutionize the way challenge, immersion and community are experienced in MMORPGs.
So how do you do that? I think it starts with perspective. I usually describe myself as someone who has been "jaded into relevance". I've been a gamer since I was 4 years old, and I have been obsessed with MMORPGs since I was 14, starting with UO and EverQuest. I have played nearly every commercial & indie MMO released since ~1997, but in 2013 I stopped cold for two reasons:
- I was tired of consuming and I wanted to start creating.
- I realized that everything I had been playing for the last 10 years felt like the same fundamental experience, over and over again, and I fell out of love with the genre.
So now I'm jaded, but that is exactly what drives me: I want to design MMORPGs that make me fall in love with them again, and hopefully many other people as well. This is a glimpse into my vision, and I've partnered it with Brad's, which brings us to...
(2) How do you revitalize 1st generation game design while keeping pace with the modern paradigms of online gaming? Or, how do you avoid creating a clone, but not fixing what isn't broken? Or perhaps most simply, how do you create an MMORPG that people want to play?
I think you have to start with a crystal clear, vetted and fortified vision, which is what Buccaneer captured in his post.
We are going back to the foundations of the genre, identifying the right paradigms, evolving-refining-solidifying them, and using them to carve a new path.
Not only is this premise ambitious, challenging and risky - but it takes a unique visionary recipe to see the right ways forward, especially in the small details of design and implementation. So Brad and I leverage our differences and use them to our advantage. Brad brings the old guard: he is a seasoned veteran of the industry who pioneered the paradigms we are seeking to recapture. I bring the new guard: young and hungry, frustrated with the sameness of MMORPGs and intent on finding the revolutionary recipe for Pantheon. We leverage this tension. Every premise point or design direction for Pantheon is hammered out on this visionary forge, and sparks often fly between us, but it's necessary to carve out the right direction and create a great game.
The next step will be to start unveiling some of these evolved systems - can't wait.
I mean no offense, and I am sorry for being harsh but...
You guys just seem to be stuck in the past, creating a game out of nostalgia for your own amusement. That is probably the worst way to start a business because you are deliberately ignoring most important ingredient - your customers, the players.
MMO market evolved the way it did because that is what players want, going back and trying to propose a different path of evolution is moot endeavor, it will die for the very same reasons gen 1 MMOs did.
There is no point trying to make Earth spin backwards.
I mean no offense, and I am sorry for being harsh but...
You guys just seem to be stuck in the past, creating a game out of nostalgia for your own amusement. That is probably the worst way to start a business because you are deliberately ignoring most important ingredient - your customers, the players.
MMO market evolved the way it did because that is what players want, going back and trying to propose a different path of evolution is moot endeavor, it will die for the very same reasons gen 1 MMOs did.
There is no point trying to make Earth spin backwards.
That is just wrong on so many ends. Let me elaborate:
The nostalgica and "stuck on the Past" - Argument is only repeated over and over, without any evidence whatsoever. Most people that follow this game WANT that past to return. I for example only joined the MMO crowed because of that past and LEFT the MMO crowd because games have changed.
They don't ignore their customers, they cater to them. They just don't cater to the big crowed of sheep, but to the people that actually know what they want and did not get that experience since a decate. Hitting a market hole is far from a bad way to start a buisiness. Riski? Yes, but definitly not bad.
MMO market did not evolve because the player wanted it. It evolved because it worked well enough to pull in new people and therefore it made more money. All while replacing the original players with new. Not catering to the old players. But the market was skyrocketing anyways. Noone ever made sure WHY it worked out this way. WOW was way closer to EQ when it started the huge influx of people.
First gen MMOs did not die. They are still there and healthy. It is the new gen games that shut down left and right. After about 1/3th or less of the life span.
"No point in making the earth spin backwards" is just something like "nostalgica!". Buzzwords made up to sound smart and down talk something that YOU personally don't like. For me it is the complete other way around. MMOs "evolved" from great RPG experiences with social interaction to something that is a solo game without RPG, without social interaction and without any enjoyment whatsoever. If that is evolution i want the earth to spin backwards.
Just think about Counter Strike. Remove guns. Let people plant flowers instead. Killing other people is no longer possible and everyone is forced to smile and greet all the time. Sounds fun? That is about as far as current MMOs changed what their BASE GENRE goes. Developer changed the genre so much that it is hardly noticeable as being the same genre.
How many people would like that "evolution" of Counter Strike?
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
I will not say that Kickstarter will not produce some successes in the industry, but the majority of the projects on KS are complete rubbish. I personally will not fund anything on Kickstarter.
I fund a ton of stuff on KS (single player games, PnP games, board games, comics, other stuff that would never have gotten made in the largely sterile world of the mainstream) and have a very positive view on it as a grassroots development enabler. I have never been burned by it personally. But, yeah, MMORPGs that intend to use it as their sole means of funding make me nervous... VR though don't want to do that as far as I can see.
Crowdfunding for them seems to be there to get a demo in place to seek further real funding through a conventional publisher or VC or whatever?
Was thinking about what VR could do to get a lot more people excited about backing this project.
VR are doing exactly what they need to do in order to get more people excited for this project. They are knuckling down and getting it done.
I started off wary, I didn't support the initial KS. At this point though, after seeing the progress made and witnessing the obvious passion and ability on display, I am excited for Pantheon. I haven't funded yet, but 1 or 2 more impressive updates and I probably will.
I mean no offense, and I am sorry for being harsh but...
You guys just seem to be stuck in the past, creating a game out of nostalgia for your own amusement. That is probably the worst way to start a business because you are deliberately ignoring most important ingredient - your customers, the players.
MMO market evolved the way it did because that is what players want, going back and trying to propose a different path of evolution is moot endeavor, it will die for the very same reasons gen 1 MMOs did.
There is no point trying to make Earth spin backwards.
That is just wrong on so many ends. Let me elaborate:
The nostalgica and "stuck on the Past" - Argument is only repeated over and over, without any evidence whatsoever. Most people that follow this game WANT that past to return. I for example only joined the MMO crowed because of that past and LEFT the MMO crowd because games have changed.
They don't ignore their customers, they cater to them. They just don't cater to the big crowed of sheep, but to the people that actually know what they want and did not get that experience since a decate. Hitting a market hole is far from a bad way to start a buisiness. Riski? Yes, but definitly not bad.
MMO market did not evolve because the player wanted it. It evolved because it worked well enough to pull in new people and therefore it made more money. All while replacing the original players with new. Not catering to the old players. But the market was skyrocketing anyways. Noone ever made sure WHY it worked out this way. WOW was way closer to EQ when it started the huge influx of people.
First gen MMOs did not die. They are still there and healthy. It is the new gen games that shut down left and right. After about 1/3th or less of the life span.
"No point in making the earth spin backwards" is just something like "nostalgica!". Buzzwords made up to sound smart and down talk something that YOU personally don't like. For me it is the complete other way around. MMOs "evolved" from great RPG experiences with social interaction to something that is a solo game without RPG, without social interaction and without any enjoyment whatsoever. If that is evolution i want the earth to spin backwards.
Just think about Counter Strike. Remove guns. Let people plant flowers instead. Killing other people is no longer possible and everyone is forced to smile and greet all the time. Sounds fun? That is about as far as current MMOs changed what their BASE GENRE goes. Developer changed the genre so much that it is hardly noticeable as being the same genre.
How many people would like that "evolution" of Counter Strike?
Spot on.
Its hard to believe people still come with the "nostalgia" and "rose colored glasses" arguments without any logic or evidence to support them. They've been obliterated on these forums so many thousands of times, but eyes are closed and ears are plugged.
Right now VR tech is just a far off reality. Till head sets are a lot lighter, UI thats fun and easy to use is made, cost bring them to under $150, till then they wont catch on. Most people look for PC around 300-500 bucks. Having to spend about that just on a headset puts it out of most peoples hands. VR is cool but its years for common use and if its not ready for common use its not going to be a money maker for software devs. Less people buying their product, less they make.
I mean no offense, and I am sorry for being harsh but...
You guys just seem to be stuck in the past, creating a game out of nostalgia for your own amusement. That is probably the worst way to start a business because you are deliberately ignoring most important ingredient - your customers, the players.
MMO market evolved the way it did because that is what players want, going back and trying to propose a different path of evolution is moot endeavor, it will die for the very same reasons gen 1 MMOs did.
There is no point trying to make Earth spin backwards.
No offense here either, but I don't think you understand how great art is made. People are notoriously bad at creating something they don't like because it's popular. Those kinds of movies, music, paintings, games, etc tend to fail, badly. Great art is made by people doing it "for their own amusement," which I would re-state as "making something they truly enjoy." Artists who do so tend to find out if they like it others will too.
I also think your characterization of customers as being of a single mind with a single set of tastes runs in the face of every other type of creative field I know. People like different kinds of music, movies, and games. Good is good regardless of the genre.
The MMO market evolved the way it did because it gave the largest segment of the population what they wanted. People with different tastes were left out of the equation. Enough of those people exist to make Project 1999 work when they did nothing more than resurrect a 15 year old game. Think about that, a segment of the population that likes those mechanics enough that they'd play a 15 year old game to get them. Which comes back to your final point. The first generation of MMOs didn't die, they are still out there and there are people playing them.
So first gen MMORPGs persist while many newer games simply die, giving players exactly what you're saying Pantheon should give them.
No offense here either, but I don't think you understand how great art is made. People are notoriously bad at creating something they don't like because it's popular. Those kinds of movies, music, paintings, games, etc tend to fail, badly. Great art is made by people doing it "for their own amusement," which I would re-state as "making something they truly enjoy." Artists who do so tend to find out if they like it others will too.
I also think your characterization of customers as being of a single mind with a single set of tastes runs in the face of every other type of creative field I know. People like different kinds of music, movies, and games. Good is good regardless of the genre.
The MMO market evolved the way it did because it gave the largest segment of the population what they wanted. People with different tastes were left out of the equation. Enough of those people exist to make Project 1999 work when they did nothing more than resurrect a 15 year old game. Think about that, a segment of the population that likes those mechanics enough that they'd play a 15 year old game to get them. Which comes back to your final point. The first generation of MMOs didn't die, they are still out there and there are people playing them.
So first gen MMORPGs persist while many newer games simply die, giving players exactly what you're saying Pantheon should give them.
People will buy more of my art/products because I like them myself...? Seriously...?
Art is business like any other - good art is the one that sells, the one that people find worth their money, the one that leads the market.
Your second half of the post is lacking any point. All you say is basically: Whatever game you make, there will always be some people playing it. That isn't enough tho since keeping a 15 y/o game running and creating a new one from the ground up are 2 entirely different things..
The first generation of MMOs indeed died since they take negligable market share, they no longer lead the market, they no longer represent any substantial demand worth considering to cater to.
I am all for modern MMO with some revitalized old mechanics but "going back to roots" and building on old mechanics means you are going to create what people no longer want, neither that is how you change the genre.
To use the music analogy again, I like old heavy metal and while I liked some of the new metal genres of more recent years I was thrilled to find out that there is a growing movement called New Wave of Traditional Heavy Metal (NWOTHM) "going back to the roots", musicians that loved that kind of music are reviving it today. They don't sound exactly like the old bands, they are slightly updated and use modern recording technology. It seems to me that this movement is a success and I certainly welcome it with open arms. It's a "niche" genre but it's well recieved and growing.
To use the music analogy again, I like old heavy metal and while I liked some of the new metal genres of more recent years I was thrilled to find out that there is a growing movement called New Wave of Traditional Heavy Metal (NWOTHM) "going back to the roots", musicians that loved that kind of music are reviving it today. They don't sound exactly like the old bands, they are slightly updated and use modern recording technology. It seems to me that this movement is a success and I certainly welcome it with open arms. It's a "niche" genre but it's well recieved and growing.
Do you also want to try to compare the costs and returns of recording an album and making an MMO...?
I am not disputing that they will not sell any copies at all, I am just saying that the game seems to be made out of nostalgia rather than well thought out business venture and as such, despite the ambitions of the devs, the impact of the game on the market will unlikely see any significance.
Of course the "it's like back in the good old days!" sentiment is not enough by itself to make it good. There were good and bad games made back then just as there are good and bad games done now, same goes for music.
My point is just that oldschool or not doesn't necessitate good or bad outcome, but there sure is room in art for revivals of old concepts and/or styles - it happens in movies, music, fashion etc. Return of "old" things in slightly reshaped, updated and modernized form.
No offense here either, but I don't think you understand how great art is made. People are notoriously bad at creating something they don't like because it's popular. Those kinds of movies, music, paintings, games, etc tend to fail, badly. Great art is made by people doing it "for their own amusement," which I would re-state as "making something they truly enjoy." Artists who do so tend to find out if they like it others will too.
I also think your characterization of customers as being of a single mind with a single set of tastes runs in the face of every other type of creative field I know. People like different kinds of music, movies, and games. Good is good regardless of the genre.
The MMO market evolved the way it did because it gave the largest segment of the population what they wanted. People with different tastes were left out of the equation. Enough of those people exist to make Project 1999 work when they did nothing more than resurrect a 15 year old game. Think about that, a segment of the population that likes those mechanics enough that they'd play a 15 year old game to get them. Which comes back to your final point. The first generation of MMOs didn't die, they are still out there and there are people playing them.
So first gen MMORPGs persist while many newer games simply die, giving players exactly what you're saying Pantheon should give them.
People will buy more of my art/products because I like them myself...? Seriously...?
Art is business like any other - good art is the one that sells, the one that people find worth their money, the one that leads the market.
Your second half of the post is lacking any point. All you say is basically: Whatever game you make, there will always be some people playing it. That isn't enough tho since keeping a 15 y/o game running and creating a new one from the ground up are 2 entirely different things..
The first generation of MMOs indeed died since they take negligable market share, they no longer lead the market, they no longer represent any substantial demand worth considering to cater to.
I am all for modern MMO with some revitalized old mechanics but "going back to roots" and building on old mechanics means you are going to create what people no longer want, neither that is how you change the genre.
No I think you don't get the point at all. Pick the top movies of all time. Were the people who made them copying other great movies so they could make a lot of money or did they just want to make a great movie?
How about the EQ and Wow, were they made by people copying someone else so they could make money? No they were made by people with a passion for making something great.
So yes, people will buy more of your art if it's something you think is great than if it is something you don't like but you made it just like some other successful thing. Seriously. And actually it's pretty obvious why.
They second half of my post makes several points. I'll simplify them for you:
- Not everyone likes the same things. - If a game just targeted the audience for project 1999 they could potentially be profitable - Today I can go play UO, EQ, AC, DAoC, they are still in the market. - There is no sane basis for claiming a game being commercially sold is dead.
You're decision that a market segment is too small is arbitrary based on criteria you invented that have no basis in reality. If enough people will pay for a product to support a development team then it is viable. You seem stuck in the antiquated mindset that all products must target the mainstream or they will fail (by some arbitrary criteria of your own invention.) Ask any small company how they'd do using that strategy.
No I think you don't get the point at all. Pick the top movies of all time. Were the people who made them copying other great movies so they could make a lot of money or did they just want to make a great movie?
How about the EQ and Wow, were they made by people copying someone else so they could make money? No they were made by people with a passion for making something great.
So yes, people will buy more of your art if it's something you think is great than if it is something you don't like but you made it just like some other successful thing. Seriously. And actually it's pretty obvious why.
They second half of my post makes several points. I'll simplify them for you:
- Not everyone likes the same things. - If a game just targeted the audience for project 1999 they could potentially be profitable - Today I can go play UO, EQ, AC, DAoC, they are still in the market. - There is no sane basis for claiming a game being commercially sold is dead.
You're decision that a market segment is too small is arbitrary based on criteria you invented that have no basis in reality. If enough people will pay for a product to support a development team then it is viable. You seem stuck in the antiquated mindset that all products must target the mainstream or they will fail (by some arbitrary criteria of your own invention.) Ask any small company how they'd do using that strategy.
My criteria is the only one relevant - money, something you deliberately keep ignoring. In that regard it indeed applies that less mainstream your product is, higher your chance to fail. That is quite a reason why it is called mainstream afterall...
Doing something unique and your very own does not produce something better, it produce something worse in vast majority of cases, it is a hit and miss game. Yes, sometimes, something exceptional comes out of it and it might even set new trend for the market but that is just that - an exception.
Since you are still serious about the fallacy of supposedly mutually exclusive endeavors of making a "copy" and be passionate about it and the idea that "if you think what you are doing is something great" ensures a success, such debate is as moot as it is silly...
My criteria is the only one relevant - money, something you deliberately keep ignoring. In that regard it indeed applies that less mainstream your product is, higher your chance to fail. That is quite a reason why it is called mainstream afterall...
Doing something unique and your very own does not produce something better, it produce something worse in vast majority of cases, it is a hit and miss game. Yes, sometimes, something exceptional comes out of it and it might even set new trend for the market but that is just that - an exception.
Since you are still serious about the fallacy of supposedly mutually exclusive endeavors of making a "copy" and be passionate about it and the idea that "if you think what you are doing is something great" ensures a success, such debate is as moot as it is silly...
You claim your criteria is money, but it isn't. Not everyone needs to make as much money as Wow to survive, a point you have yet to even acknowledge despite the fact I keep presenting you with example, even 15 year old games that are still being sold because they still make money.
The overwhelming majority of cases making any kind of art at all does not produce something better. Success for a game, movie, music etc is an exception in the first place. A point you don't seem to get. I'm not talking about guaranteed success, because there is no such thing, which should be obvious to anyone. I'm talking about what is your best chance and I will state again, copying someone else's success is an almost guaranteed failure, for the simple reason that the person your copying will do it better than you. They can actually use their own tastes and sense of what is good to determine how good it is, something you can't do if your making something you're not wild about. You seem to think things can be made by formula and be successful, good luck with that.
You claim it's a fallacy, yet you provide no support. I can Star Wars, EQ, Indiana Jones, U2, The Beatles, Wow, all art made by people with a passion for what they were doing. I could give you examples all day. You think it's a fallacy, then give me your examples of leaders in the field who got there by imitating someone else's success.
No I think you don't get the point at all. Pick the top movies of all time. Were the people who made them copying other great movies so they could make a lot of money or did they just want to make a great movie?
How about the EQ and Wow, were they made by people copying someone else so they could make money? No they were made by people with a passion for making something great.
So yes, people will buy more of your art if it's something you think is great than if it is something you don't like but you made it just like some other successful thing. Seriously. And actually it's pretty obvious why.
They second half of my post makes several points. I'll simplify them for you:
- Not everyone likes the same things. - If a game just targeted the audience for project 1999 they could potentially be profitable - Today I can go play UO, EQ, AC, DAoC, they are still in the market. - There is no sane basis for claiming a game being commercially sold is dead.
You're decision that a market segment is too small is arbitrary based on criteria you invented that have no basis in reality. If enough people will pay for a product to support a development team then it is viable. You seem stuck in the antiquated mindset that all products must target the mainstream or they will fail (by some arbitrary criteria of your own invention.) Ask any small company how they'd do using that strategy.
My criteria is the only one relevant - money, something you deliberately keep ignoring. In that regard it indeed applies that less mainstream your product is, higher your chance to fail. That is quite a reason why it is called mainstream afterall...
Doing something unique and your very own does not produce something better, it produce something worse in vast majority of cases, it is a hit and miss game. Yes, sometimes, something exceptional comes out of it and it might even set new trend for the market but that is just that - an exception.
Since you are still serious about the fallacy of supposedly mutually exclusive endeavors of making a "copy" and be passionate about it and the idea that "if you think what you are doing is something great" ensures a success, such debate is as moot as it is silly...
The criteria to create any GREAT work of art, MMORPGs included, is never money first. Whereas money is a great concern when MMORPGs and their costs are taken into consideration, money is not the top priority.
To any individual and-or individuals working on what they see as a GREAT work of art, it is appreciation of the genre and a vision toward moving the genre forward in some manner. When I think "MMORPG," I am thinking from Pen & Paper / Tabletop RPGs and their player experiences delivered, as the foundation of said MMORPG.
So NO... money is far from the only one relevant criteria to build an MMORPG, at all. Money is not even the first relevant criteria.
A properly designed MMORPG, such as is created in the initially intended vision of the Pen & Paper / Tabletop RPG, is not going to be the commonly considered "mainstream" market you believe an MMORPG should be for. The Pen & Paper / Tablertop RPG industry is still very much alive and well today. I happen to receive a nice sized catalogue of that very industry, each and every quarter, as I have for years and will for years to come.
Whereas you are correct, most people's visions are crap outright (which is why player authored content is never a good idea, unless it is filtered), there are those whereas that is not the case. The vision for Pantheon here is definitely not crap, and Brad McQuaid has a past history which shows that he actually does producer GREAT MMORPGs. Everquest is still going strong, especially when you take into consideration the live servers of Daybreak, Project 1999, and even other private servers that are not allowed to be mentioned. Together, the playerbase of just those versions of the original EQ alone, show for a still very stable market of that audience.
Vanguard is another proof of a GREAT MMORPG even though it closed down, after a horrible launch and 7 years without a single expansion, and having had the same bugs from release to the day it closed down. The game itself though, was a GREAT MMORPG overall, if questing specifically would have been done differently and their diplomacy system would have intertwined with other aspects of the game better. I would not even be having this conversation if it was still running.
If I created an MMORPG I know it would be among the GREAT MMORPGs, based on my past experience and from the greater majority perspective of that audience which recognizes MMORPGs as the Pen & Paper RPG player experience, as brought online. That may sound completely silly, completely biased, completely conceited, completely illogical, but I know it to be true. I have run my ideas by plenty of friends over the years in real life, as well as online players in various MMORPGs, and they all have the same reaction. They wish I would get moving on making the damn thing already. Unfortunately, that may be 25 years down the road before I launch the first edition planned, as there are other steps to get to that point. I planned my life backwards I guess you could say, establishing my end life goals and have been building bridges to my current scenario, whereas in the next year or two I can finally cross the first bridge.
And as far as the "nostalgia argument" you mentioned in an earlier post... That is just an argument from complete ignorance. There are particular pillars that hold true for all forms of art, the MMORPG as derived from the foundation of Pen & Paper RPG player experiences included. Those pillars have all but been forgotten by today's developers (saying they ever even noticed them), and they have never been seen by today's playerbase (which also means that at least some among today's playerbase may actually find themselves to enjoy such pillars afterall), but those whom are called "nostalgic" have not forgotten those pillars...
Those are the pillars of a proper MMORPG... Not of today's mainstream MMO Games... Not the same genre.
I don't back ideas unless there is a payoff. Playing an early alpha/beta of some game in development is not a payoff to me. I prefer to purchase finished products.
Comments
VR will always be held back by one simple truth, the nausea of extended use.
Your post does a good job of capturing our overall studio vision, and certainly our design direction with Pantheon. It inspires me to share two things:
Creative Director, Lead Game Designer | Visionary Realms, Inc.
Visit the official website of Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen at www.pantheonmmo.com!
What would be the point of the game being in VR if you still control it with a keyboard and mouse?
VR is about interaction and immersion and there is nothing interactive or immersive about current MMO control methods.
You guys just seem to be stuck in the past, creating a game out of nostalgia for your own amusement. That is probably the worst way to start a business because you are deliberately ignoring most important ingredient - your customers, the players.
MMO market evolved the way it did because that is what players want, going back and trying to propose a different path of evolution is moot endeavor, it will die for the very same reasons gen 1 MMOs did.
There is no point trying to make Earth spin backwards.
Just think about Counter Strike. Remove guns. Let people plant flowers instead. Killing other people is no longer possible and everyone is forced to smile and greet all the time. Sounds fun? That is about as far as current MMOs changed what their BASE GENRE goes. Developer changed the genre so much that it is hardly noticeable as being the same genre.
How many people would like that "evolution" of Counter Strike?
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
There are plenty of new ideas on the table for this game.
You are (intentionally?) confusing nostalgia with preferred design philosophies. How is this even a nostalgia based project?
You seem to be lazily sniping at something you don't really understand. Default internet position to many, sadly.
I fund a ton of stuff on KS (single player games, PnP games, board games, comics, other stuff that would never have gotten made in the largely sterile world of the mainstream) and have a very positive view on it as a grassroots development enabler. I have never been burned by it personally. But, yeah, MMORPGs that intend to use it as their sole means of funding make me nervous... VR though don't want to do that as far as I can see.
Crowdfunding for them seems to be there to get a demo in place to seek further real funding through a conventional publisher or VC or whatever?
I'm alright with that.
VR are doing exactly what they need to do in order to get more people excited for this project. They are knuckling down and getting it done.
I started off wary, I didn't support the initial KS. At this point though, after seeing the progress made and witnessing the obvious passion and ability on display, I am excited for Pantheon. I haven't funded yet, but 1 or 2 more impressive updates and I probably will.
Its hard to believe people still come with the "nostalgia" and "rose colored glasses" arguments without any logic or evidence to support them. They've been obliterated on these forums so many thousands of times, but eyes are closed and ears are plugged.
I also think your characterization of customers as being of a single mind with a single set of tastes runs in the face of every other type of creative field I know. People like different kinds of music, movies, and games. Good is good regardless of the genre.
The MMO market evolved the way it did because it gave the largest segment of the population what they wanted. People with different tastes were left out of the equation. Enough of those people exist to make Project 1999 work when they did nothing more than resurrect a 15 year old game. Think about that, a segment of the population that likes those mechanics enough that they'd play a 15 year old game to get them. Which comes back to your final point. The first generation of MMOs didn't die, they are still out there and there are people playing them.
So first gen MMORPGs persist while many newer games simply die, giving players exactly what you're saying Pantheon should give them.
Art is business like any other - good art is the one that sells, the one that people find worth their money, the one that leads the market.
Your second half of the post is lacking any point. All you say is basically: Whatever game you make, there will always be some people playing it. That isn't enough tho since keeping a 15 y/o game running and creating a new one from the ground up are 2 entirely different things..
The first generation of MMOs indeed died since they take negligable market share, they no longer lead the market, they no longer represent any substantial demand worth considering to cater to.
I am all for modern MMO with some revitalized old mechanics but "going back to roots" and building on old mechanics means you are going to create what people no longer want, neither that is how you change the genre.
I am not disputing that they will not sell any copies at all, I am just saying that the game seems to be made out of nostalgia rather than well thought out business venture and as such, despite the ambitions of the devs, the impact of the game on the market will unlikely see any significance.
My point is just that oldschool or not doesn't necessitate good or bad outcome, but there sure is room in art for revivals of old concepts and/or styles - it happens in movies, music, fashion etc. Return of "old" things in slightly reshaped, updated and modernized form.
How about the EQ and Wow, were they made by people copying someone else so they could make money? No they were made by people with a passion for making something great.
So yes, people will buy more of your art if it's something you think is great than if it is something you don't like but you made it just like some other successful thing. Seriously. And actually it's pretty obvious why.
They second half of my post makes several points. I'll simplify them for you:
- Not everyone likes the same things.
- If a game just targeted the audience for project 1999 they could potentially be profitable
- Today I can go play UO, EQ, AC, DAoC, they are still in the market.
- There is no sane basis for claiming a game being commercially sold is dead.
You're decision that a market segment is too small is arbitrary based on criteria you invented that have no basis in reality. If enough people will pay for a product to support a development team then it is viable. You seem stuck in the antiquated mindset that all products must target the mainstream or they will fail (by some arbitrary criteria of your own invention.) Ask any small company how they'd do using that strategy.
Doing something unique and your very own does not produce something better, it produce something worse in vast majority of cases, it is a hit and miss game. Yes, sometimes, something exceptional comes out of it and it might even set new trend for the market but that is just that - an exception.
Since you are still serious about the fallacy of supposedly mutually exclusive endeavors of making a "copy" and be passionate about it and the idea that "if you think what you are doing is something great" ensures a success, such debate is as moot as it is silly...
The overwhelming majority of cases making any kind of art at all does not produce something better. Success for a game, movie, music etc is an exception in the first place. A point you don't seem to get. I'm not talking about guaranteed success, because there is no such thing, which should be obvious to anyone. I'm talking about what is your best chance and I will state again, copying someone else's success is an almost guaranteed failure, for the simple reason that the person your copying will do it better than you. They can actually use their own tastes and sense of what is good to determine how good it is, something you can't do if your making something you're not wild about. You seem to think things can be made by formula and be successful, good luck with that.
You claim it's a fallacy, yet you provide no support. I can Star Wars, EQ, Indiana Jones, U2, The Beatles, Wow, all art made by people with a passion for what they were doing. I could give you examples all day. You think it's a fallacy, then give me your examples of leaders in the field who got there by imitating someone else's success.
To any individual and-or individuals working on what they see as a GREAT work of art, it is appreciation of the genre and a vision toward moving the genre forward in some manner. When I think "MMORPG," I am thinking from Pen & Paper / Tabletop RPGs and their player experiences delivered, as the foundation of said MMORPG.
So NO... money is far from the only one relevant criteria to build an MMORPG, at all. Money is not even the first relevant criteria.
A properly designed MMORPG, such as is created in the initially intended vision of the Pen & Paper / Tabletop RPG, is not going to be the commonly considered "mainstream" market you believe an MMORPG should be for. The Pen & Paper / Tablertop RPG industry is still very much alive and well today. I happen to receive a nice sized catalogue of that very industry, each and every quarter, as I have for years and will for years to come.
Whereas you are correct, most people's visions are crap outright (which is why player authored content is never a good idea, unless it is filtered), there are those whereas that is not the case. The vision for Pantheon here is definitely not crap, and Brad McQuaid has a past history which shows that he actually does producer GREAT MMORPGs. Everquest is still going strong, especially when you take into consideration the live servers of Daybreak, Project 1999, and even other private servers that are not allowed to be mentioned. Together, the playerbase of just those versions of the original EQ alone, show for a still very stable market of that audience.
Vanguard is another proof of a GREAT MMORPG even though it closed down, after a horrible launch and 7 years without a single expansion, and having had the same bugs from release to the day it closed down. The game itself though, was a GREAT MMORPG overall, if questing specifically would have been done differently and their diplomacy system would have intertwined with other aspects of the game better. I would not even be having this conversation if it was still running.
If I created an MMORPG I know it would be among the GREAT MMORPGs, based on my past experience and from the greater majority perspective of that audience which recognizes MMORPGs as the Pen & Paper RPG player experience, as brought online. That may sound completely silly, completely biased, completely conceited, completely illogical, but I know it to be true. I have run my ideas by plenty of friends over the years in real life, as well as online players in various MMORPGs, and they all have the same reaction. They wish I would get moving on making the damn thing already. Unfortunately, that may be 25 years down the road before I launch the first edition planned, as there are other steps to get to that point. I planned my life backwards I guess you could say, establishing my end life goals and have been building bridges to my current scenario, whereas in the next year or two I can finally cross the first bridge.
And as far as the "nostalgia argument" you mentioned in an earlier post... That is just an argument from complete ignorance. There are particular pillars that hold true for all forms of art, the MMORPG as derived from the foundation of Pen & Paper RPG player experiences included. Those pillars have all but been forgotten by today's developers (saying they ever even noticed them), and they have never been seen by today's playerbase (which also means that at least some among today's playerbase may actually find themselves to enjoy such pillars afterall), but those whom are called "nostalgic" have not forgotten those pillars...
Those are the pillars of a proper MMORPG... Not of today's mainstream MMO Games... Not the same genre.
I don't back ideas unless there is a payoff. Playing an early alpha/beta of some game in development is not a payoff to me. I prefer to purchase finished products.