Your posts are always highly ironic. You're one of the crowd who makes the backless claim of 'what you want is in the minority' referencing 'old school' preferences. Despite countless challenges on backing your claims by many different posters, you always fail to deliver.
You're missing the entire point. These companies are doing the market research and they are making games based on that market research. The fact that they are not making old-school games is evidence that their research says there isn't any money in it. If there was, they'd be making them!
However, I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims, that goes to the old-schoolers who keep insisting that there's a massive untapped market of people dying for an old-school game. I keep asking them to prove it, since apparently the marketing arm of every major P2P developer out there can't seem to find it, and they fail miserably to back up their claims.
Again, you don't have any market research to the contrary. If so, please do show it. COurse you'll probably take the cop out of "I'm not the one having to prove anything here", in which case if you do take that route, let's just agree not to respond to each other's posts anymore as for me it cements a certain idea I have.
I'm not taking sides on the arguement here, but I'd like to point out that what you describe as a "cop out" here is actually called the "burden of proof" - a very basic rule of argumentation. Someone who makes a claim against the status quo must shoulder the burden of proof to back up their claim with evidence, or it could quite reasonably be dismissed. In this case, the popularly accepted view is that "old school" gamers comprise a very small part of the greater mmo player community and thus it is the status quo in this case. Whether or not he would be able to find said research is irrelevant to the statement you are trying to make. Also, you've committed an ad hominem fallacy by insulting him personally. That's generally not a good idea if you expect to be taken seriously.
Someone feel free to correct me if this is not the case.
You're absolutely right, as I've pointed out time and time again, only to get ignored. It's much easier to just make baseless claims, refuse to back them up with evidence, and get upset when people don't blindly accept your claims as gospel truth. It just shows that the people who are making these claims are incapable of debating rationally, nor are they interested in finding the truth of the matter, only in supporting their own preconceived notions.
No real surprise there.
Your posts are always highly ironic. You're one of the crowd who makes the backless claim of 'what you want is in the minority' referencing 'old school' preferences. Despite countless challenges on backing your claims by many different posters, you always fail to deliver.
Ignorance, sometimes, is earned. (Fun lil' play on words there)
And if you're well-read, consider Bradbury's 'The Dwarf' to better understand the concept of preaching something and neglected to 'look into the mirror' as it were, as Ralph so aptly demonstrates.
Doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is still on the ones claiming that an old school MMO would be successful and the elements they present are wanted...
And people keep saying Eve as proof and you guys keep ignoring it. So, ultimately you don't want to hear any proof is what it seems to be. You say "give me proof" when in fact nothing that could ever be said will be accepted.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Again, you don't have any market research to the contrary. If so, please do show it. COurse you'll probably take the cop out of "I'm not the one having to prove anything here", in which case if you do take that route, let's just agree not to respond to each other's posts anymore as for me it cements a certain idea I have.
I'm not taking sides on the arguement here, but I'd like to point out that what you describe as a "cop out" here is actually called the "burden of proof" - a very basic rule of argumentation. Someone who makes a claim against the status quo must shoulder the burden of proof to back up their claim with evidence, or it could quite reasonably be dismissed. In this case, the popularly accepted view is that "old school" gamers comprise a very small part of the greater mmo player community and thus it is the status quo in this case. Whether or not he would be able to find said research is irrelevant to the statement you are trying to make. Also, you've committed an ad hominem fallacy by insulting him personally. That's generally not a good idea if you expect to be taken seriously.
Someone feel free to correct me if this is not the case.
You're absolutely right, as I've pointed out time and time again, only to get ignored. It's much easier to just make baseless claims, refuse to back them up with evidence, and get upset when people don't blindly accept your claims as gospel truth. It just shows that the people who are making these claims are incapable of debating rationally, nor are they interested in finding the truth of the matter, only in supporting their own preconceived notions.
No real surprise there.
Your posts are always highly ironic. You're one of the crowd who makes the backless claim of 'what you want is in the minority' referencing 'old school' preferences. Despite countless challenges on backing your claims by many different posters, you always fail to deliver.
Ignorance, sometimes, is earned. (Fun lil' play on words there)
And if you're well-read, consider Bradbury's 'The Dwarf' to better understand the concept of preaching something and neglected to 'look into the mirror' as it were, as Ralph so aptly demonstrates.
Doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is still on the ones claiming that an old school MMO would be successful and the elements they present are wanted...
And people keep saying Eve as proof and you guys keep ignoring it. So, ultimately you don't want to hear any proof is what it seems to be. You say "give me proof" when in fact nothing that could ever be said will be accepted.
So what you are saying is that you already have a game that fits all your criteria? Then why is this thread even created?!
Your posts are always highly ironic. You're one of the crowd who makes the backless claim of 'what you want is in the minority' referencing 'old school' preferences. Despite countless challenges on backing your claims by many different posters, you always fail to deliver.
You're missing the entire point. These companies are doing the market research and they are making games based on that market research. The fact that they are not making old-school games is evidence that their research says there isn't any money in it. If there was, they'd be making them!
However, I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims, that goes to the old-schoolers who keep insisting that there's a massive untapped market of people dying for an old-school game. I keep asking them to prove it, since apparently the marketing arm of every major P2P developer out there can't seem to find it, and they fail miserably to back up their claims.
So do try again, won't you?
They are punch drunk on catching Wow at its own game. They aren't doing market research for anything else except for "what do you like/dislike about WoW?".
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
And people keep saying Eve as proof and you guys keep ignoring it. So, ultimately you don't want to hear any proof is what it seems to be. You say "give me proof" when in fact nothing that could ever be said will be accepted.
Which means you'd be asked to demonstrate that people are playing EvE for it's supposed old-school aspects and not for other reasons, like it's the only real sci-fi game on the market. Can you do that?
They are punch drunk on catching Wow at its own game. They aren't doing market research for anything else except for "what do you like/dislike about WoW?".
Really? You sure seem to know a lot about the market research arm of every P2P developer out there. Exactly how do you have this information, or is it yet another thing you just pulled out of your ass?
Again, you don't have any market research to the contrary. If so, please do show it. COurse you'll probably take the cop out of "I'm not the one having to prove anything here", in which case if you do take that route, let's just agree not to respond to each other's posts anymore as for me it cements a certain idea I have.
I'm not taking sides on the arguement here, but I'd like to point out that what you describe as a "cop out" here is actually called the "burden of proof" - a very basic rule of argumentation. Someone who makes a claim against the status quo must shoulder the burden of proof to back up their claim with evidence, or it could quite reasonably be dismissed. In this case, the popularly accepted view is that "old school" gamers comprise a very small part of the greater mmo player community and thus it is the status quo in this case. Whether or not he would be able to find said research is irrelevant to the statement you are trying to make. Also, you've committed an ad hominem fallacy by insulting him personally. That's generally not a good idea if you expect to be taken seriously.
Someone feel free to correct me if this is not the case.
You're absolutely right, as I've pointed out time and time again, only to get ignored. It's much easier to just make baseless claims, refuse to back them up with evidence, and get upset when people don't blindly accept your claims as gospel truth. It just shows that the people who are making these claims are incapable of debating rationally, nor are they interested in finding the truth of the matter, only in supporting their own preconceived notions.
No real surprise there.
Your posts are always highly ironic. You're one of the crowd who makes the backless claim of 'what you want is in the minority' referencing 'old school' preferences. Despite countless challenges on backing your claims by many different posters, you always fail to deliver.
Ignorance, sometimes, is earned. (Fun lil' play on words there)
And if you're well-read, consider Bradbury's 'The Dwarf' to better understand the concept of preaching something and neglected to 'look into the mirror' as it were, as Ralph so aptly demonstrates.
Doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is still on the ones claiming that an old school MMO would be successful and the elements they present are wanted...
And people keep saying Eve as proof and you guys keep ignoring it. So, ultimately you don't want to hear any proof is what it seems to be. You say "give me proof" when in fact nothing that could ever be said will be accepted.
So what you are saying is that you already have a game that fits all your criteria? Then why is this thread even created?!
lol! I knew you were going to come back with that BS answer. Le sigh. By that logic, your WOW is there, why should you want any other games to play? If you were keeping up with this thread you'd see where I said why. Eve has it's hindrances (primarily being no humanoid avatar), and on top of that its Sci-Fi in a land dominated by Fantasy. Yet it still does well.
No wonder the world is as screwed up today as it is. People arguing against something that wouldn't affect them in either way. They just don't want others to have it so they argue loud and proud against it.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
They are punch drunk on catching Wow at its own game. They aren't doing market research for anything else except for "what do you like/dislike about WoW?".
Really? You sure seem to know a lot about the market research arm of every P2P developer out there. Exactly how do you have this information, or is it yet another thing you just pulled out of your ass?
I was...no, wait, I have already asked the same of you. You're the one who initiated making such "market research" statements yet have not produced any evidence showing that you make your claims from fact. Indeed, it was you who went to the ass first.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
And people keep saying Eve as proof and you guys keep ignoring it. So, ultimately you don't want to hear any proof is what it seems to be. You say "give me proof" when in fact nothing that could ever be said will be accepted.
Which means you'd be asked to demonstrate that people are playing EvE for it's supposed old-school aspects and not for other reasons, like it's the only real sci-fi game on the market. Can you do that?
Can I what, continue to jump through the endless set of hoops you'll keep manufacturing if I do answer each point? No. As I said above no matter what answers are giving and how true they ring you and others will never accept them. So there's no point.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is still on the ones claiming that an old school MMO would be successful and the elements they present are wanted...
And people keep saying Eve as proof and you guys keep ignoring it. So, ultimately you don't want to hear any proof is what it seems to be. You say "give me proof" when in fact nothing that could ever be said will be accepted.
So what you are saying is that you already have a game that fits all your criteria? Then why is this thread even created?!
lol! I knew you were going to come back with that BS answer. Le sigh. By that logic, your WOW is there, why should you want any other games to play? If you were keeping up with this thread you'd see where I said why. Eve has it's hindrances (primarily being no humanoid avatar), and on top of that its Sci-Fi in a land dominated by Fantasy. Yet it still does well.
No wonder the world is as screwed up today as it is. People arguing against something that wouldn't affect them in either way. They just don't want others to have it so they argue loud and proud against it.
So EvE is and old school game which isn't an old school game, or isn't enough of an old school game. And a few pages back I got criticized for saying FFA full loot PvP was a feature old schooler's wanted..
How would a developer wasting 5 years making a game I will most likely not play vs making a game I will most likely play not affect me? If you get a game you like that's awesome for you, not so much for me. Game developers are a scarce resource, and focusing on you means not focusing on me.
And people keep saying Eve as proof and you guys keep ignoring it. So, ultimately you don't want to hear any proof is what it seems to be. You say "give me proof" when in fact nothing that could ever be said will be accepted.
Which means you'd be asked to demonstrate that people are playing EvE for it's supposed old-school aspects and not for other reasons, like it's the only real sci-fi game on the market. Can you do that?
Can I what, continue to jump through the endless set of hoops you'll keep manufacturing if I do answer each point? No. As I said above no matter what answers are giving and how true they ring you and others will never accept them. So there's no point.
If you don't intend to back up claims you should avoid making them in the first place.
Doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is still on the ones claiming that an old school MMO would be successful and the elements they present are wanted...
And people keep saying Eve as proof and you guys keep ignoring it. So, ultimately you don't want to hear any proof is what it seems to be. You say "give me proof" when in fact nothing that could ever be said will be accepted.
So what you are saying is that you already have a game that fits all your criteria? Then why is this thread even created?!
lol! I knew you were going to come back with that BS answer. Le sigh. By that logic, your WOW is there, why should you want any other games to play? If you were keeping up with this thread you'd see where I said why. Eve has it's hindrances (primarily being no humanoid avatar), and on top of that its Sci-Fi in a land dominated by Fantasy. Yet it still does well.
No wonder the world is as screwed up today as it is. People arguing against something that wouldn't affect them in either way. They just don't want others to have it so they argue loud and proud against it.
So EvE is and old school game which isn't an old school game, or isn't enough of an old school game. And a few pages back I got criticized for saying FFA full loot PvP was a feature old schooler's wanted..
How would a developer wasting 5 years making a game I will most likely not play vs making a game I will most likely play not affect me? If you get a game you like that's awesome for you, not so much for me. Game developers are a scarce resource, and focusing on you means not focusing on me.
I have no idea what you are saying about Eve so I'm not going to touch that part, lol.
On to the second part. Aercus, assuming you are on the opposite side (which I've come to believe, please correct if you feel the need) all of the modern AAA games in development are for you already. The situation that you are trying to illustrate here as a hypothetical for you is an actual for us. So when talking games in development, yeah, you should now be able to appreciate where we are coming from and if say 5 games are made, I don't see how 1 of the 5 being made toward us will negatively impact you. You still have 4 choices to our 1. Currently, using the same 5 number, we have 0 choices to your 5.
Again, this isn't a charge to completely start making all games one way (which currently they are doing but doing it your way). If they were making them all my way then I'm sure you'd be upset and voicing a desire for some variety. The only difference is I wouldn't be here trying to shout you down or lecture you on business 101 and economics 101. No, I'd be here saying "You know what, variety is good. They should do something in the manner you describe for you and those you want what you want".
But, that's how I was raised. *shrug*
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
And people keep saying Eve as proof and you guys keep ignoring it. So, ultimately you don't want to hear any proof is what it seems to be. You say "give me proof" when in fact nothing that could ever be said will be accepted.
Which means you'd be asked to demonstrate that people are playing EvE for it's supposed old-school aspects and not for other reasons, like it's the only real sci-fi game on the market. Can you do that?
Can I what, continue to jump through the endless set of hoops you'll keep manufacturing if I do answer each point? No. As I said above no matter what answers are giving and how true they ring you and others will never accept them. So there's no point.
If you don't intend to back up claims you should avoid making them in the first place.
So should he. And again, you ignore the rest of what I wrote here and the fact that no matter what is stated it'll never be accepted so why play such a pointless game.
Edit: And now I have stuff to do and can't respond to posts so...I guess I'll check back later tonight. Have a great day all!
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is still on the ones claiming that an old school MMO would be successful and the elements they present are wanted...
And people keep saying Eve as proof and you guys keep ignoring it. So, ultimately you don't want to hear any proof is what it seems to be. You say "give me proof" when in fact nothing that could ever be said will be accepted.
So what you are saying is that you already have a game that fits all your criteria? Then why is this thread even created?!
lol! I knew you were going to come back with that BS answer. Le sigh. By that logic, your WOW is there, why should you want any other games to play? If you were keeping up with this thread you'd see where I said why. Eve has it's hindrances (primarily being no humanoid avatar), and on top of that its Sci-Fi in a land dominated by Fantasy. Yet it still does well.
No wonder the world is as screwed up today as it is. People arguing against something that wouldn't affect them in either way. They just don't want others to have it so they argue loud and proud against it.
So EvE is and old school game which isn't an old school game, or isn't enough of an old school game. And a few pages back I got criticized for saying FFA full loot PvP was a feature old schooler's wanted..
How would a developer wasting 5 years making a game I will most likely not play vs making a game I will most likely play not affect me? If you get a game you like that's awesome for you, not so much for me. Game developers are a scarce resource, and focusing on you means not focusing on me.
I have no idea what you are saying about Eve so I'm not going to touch that part, lol.
On to the second part. Aercus, assuming you are on the opposite side (which I've come to believe, please correct if you feel the need) all of the modern AAA games in development are for you already. The situation that you are trying to illustrate here as a hypothetical for you is an actual for us. So when talking games in development, yeah, you should now be able to appreciate where we are coming from and if say 5 games are made, I don't see how 1 of the 5 being made toward us will negatively impact you. You still have 4 choices to our 1. Currently, using the same 5 number, we have 0 choices to your 5.
Again, this isn't a charge to completely start making all games one way (which currently they are doing but doing it your way). If they were making them all my way then I'm sure you'd be upset and voicing a desire for some variety. The only difference is I wouldn't be here trying to shout you down or lecture you on business 101 and economics 101. No, I'd be here saying "You know what, variety is good. They should do something in the manner you describe for you and those you want what you want".
But, that's how I was raised. *shrug*
Through the years I have tried and not liked (chronologically) EQ, AO, WoW, VG, TR, EQ2, EVE. Games that I have liked for a while were LoTRO, FE, and AoC. Only games which looks like something I'll like that's on the horizon are SW:TOR and SW, but no guarantees. The rest of the games which are coming up looks blah, and there are a number of games with old school elements coming up (some would include Alganon, FFXIV, Earthrise, MO). There are not a lot of AAA's on the horizon now, but a bunch of niche games are coming up - most look completely unappealing.
Again, you don't have any market research to the contrary. If so, please do show it. COurse you'll probably take the cop out of "I'm not the one having to prove anything here", in which case if you do take that route, let's just agree not to respond to each other's posts anymore as for me it cements a certain idea I have.
I'm not taking sides on the arguement here, but I'd like to point out that what you describe as a "cop out" here is actually called the "burden of proof" - a very basic rule of argumentation. Someone who makes a claim against the status quo must shoulder the burden of proof to back up their claim with evidence, or it could quite reasonably be dismissed. In this case, the popularly accepted view is that "old school" gamers comprise a very small part of the greater mmo player community and thus it is the status quo in this case. Whether or not he would be able to find said research is irrelevant to the statement you are trying to make. Also, you've committed an ad hominem fallacy by insulting him personally. That's generally not a good idea if you expect to be taken seriously.
Someone feel free to correct me if this is not the case.
You're absolutely right, as I've pointed out time and time again, only to get ignored. It's much easier to just make baseless claims, refuse to back them up with evidence, and get upset when people don't blindly accept your claims as gospel truth. It just shows that the people who are making these claims are incapable of debating rationally, nor are they interested in finding the truth of the matter, only in supporting their own preconceived notions.
No real surprise there.
Your posts are always highly ironic. You're one of the crowd who makes the backless claim of 'what you want is in the minority' referencing 'old school' preferences. Despite countless challenges on backing your claims by many different posters, you always fail to deliver.
Ignorance, sometimes, is earned. (Fun lil' play on words there)
And if you're well-read, consider Bradbury's 'The Dwarf' to better understand the concept of preaching something and neglected to 'look into the mirror' as it were, as Ralph so aptly demonstrates.
Doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is still on the ones claiming that an old school MMO would be successful and the elements they present are wanted...
And doesn't change the fact that the 'present status quo' should be able to refute challenges. One argumentative fallacy is not any less than another.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Again, you don't have any market research to the contrary. If so, please do show it. COurse you'll probably take the cop out of "I'm not the one having to prove anything here", in which case if you do take that route, let's just agree not to respond to each other's posts anymore as for me it cements a certain idea I have.
I'm not taking sides on the arguement here, but I'd like to point out that what you describe as a "cop out" here is actually called the "burden of proof" - a very basic rule of argumentation. Someone who makes a claim against the status quo must shoulder the burden of proof to back up their claim with evidence, or it could quite reasonably be dismissed. In this case, the popularly accepted view is that "old school" gamers comprise a very small part of the greater mmo player community and thus it is the status quo in this case. Whether or not he would be able to find said research is irrelevant to the statement you are trying to make. Also, you've committed an ad hominem fallacy by insulting him personally. That's generally not a good idea if you expect to be taken seriously.
Someone feel free to correct me if this is not the case.
You're absolutely right, as I've pointed out time and time again, only to get ignored. It's much easier to just make baseless claims, refuse to back them up with evidence, and get upset when people don't blindly accept your claims as gospel truth. It just shows that the people who are making these claims are incapable of debating rationally, nor are they interested in finding the truth of the matter, only in supporting their own preconceived notions.
No real surprise there.
Your posts are always highly ironic. You're one of the crowd who makes the backless claim of 'what you want is in the minority' referencing 'old school' preferences. Despite countless challenges on backing your claims by many different posters, you always fail to deliver.
Ignorance, sometimes, is earned. (Fun lil' play on words there)
And if you're well-read, consider Bradbury's 'The Dwarf' to better understand the concept of preaching something and neglected to 'look into the mirror' as it were, as Ralph so aptly demonstrates.
Doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is still on the ones claiming that an old school MMO would be successful and the elements they present are wanted...
And doesn't change the fact that the 'present status quo' should be able to refute challenges. One argumentative fallacy is not any less than another.
There hasn't been anything to show that oldschool MMOs aren't profitable. So far, they have a much more profitable track record than WoW clones. One would probably do very well.
I also think that WoW distorted the way people regard the MMO market. Before WoW a subscription number of 100k-500k was a healthy number for a MMO - Everquest got in its days as good attention from the media as WoW, Second Life and Farmville get - and there was a large diversity of MMO's upcoming already between 2000-2005 who had sub numbers between 50k-500.000k that were doing fine. But since WoW those numbers are suddenly not enough and for many a sign that a game is just "niche" (in my eyes "niche" is a term to describe a specific brand of gameplay, not of sub numbers, but ok).
Distortion? That is called PROGRESS.
Take SP games for examples. 20 years ago, a game which sells 50-100k copies are good. Now you need a few million copies to be a hit. Distortion by DOOM, Diablo and other blockbuster?
No it is just progress. Just like movies. Bigger market, bigger audience, bigger productions. You cannot turn back the clock and use criterion 10 years ago to define success.
And of course 100k is no longer enough. Production costs is much higher. Look at how much EQ cost and how much a modern AAA MMO cost and tell me you can use the same criterion.
Look at TOR, it needs a lot more than 100k to just break even.
Your posts are always highly ironic. You're one of the crowd who makes the backless claim of 'what you want is in the minority' referencing 'old school' preferences. Despite countless challenges on backing your claims by many different posters, you always fail to deliver.
You're missing the entire point. These companies are doing the market research and they are making games based on that market research. The fact that they are not making old-school games is evidence that their research says there isn't any money in it. If there was, they'd be making them!
However, I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims, that goes to the old-schoolers who keep insisting that there's a massive untapped market of people dying for an old-school game. I keep asking them to prove it, since apparently the marketing arm of every major P2P developer out there can't seem to find it, and they fail miserably to back up their claims.
So do try again, won't you?
1. No proof that 'these companies' are 'doing market research'. Star Wars NGE? WAR? Aion? Clearly the 'research' that was being done was very faulty.
2. If something is NOT being done, that is in no way evidence that it is DUE TO indications of the 'market'. It could, for simple example, be simply due to the fact that it hasn't dawned on anyone, hasn't yet been tried, hasn't been done properly... Your conclusion takes a leap of faith based on facts you do not own. It's an assumption, not a proof.
3. Old schoolers on this backwater forum, on prime-time forums like EJ, AJ, mmo-champion, curse amongst others have been whining about certain changes, and cheering for others. Concerning challenge, empirically if I cared to count, I'm sure I could tally up at least a thousand screen names alone that claim a desire to reinstate 'meaning' or something equal to that affect. Being an engineer and knowing all too much about statistics and sample sizes, I would also be able to conclude, scientifically mind you, that this is but a segment of gamers in a pool that I will never be able to sample properly in its entirety. But given my empirical findings, I could also safely conclude that there are many others out there, enough to make a game that 'caters to them' that would draw 10 thousand, 100 thousand? based on their desired concepts alone.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
I also think that WoW distorted the way people regard the MMO market. Before WoW a subscription number of 100k-500k was a healthy number for a MMO - Everquest got in its days as good attention from the media as WoW, Second Life and Farmville get - and there was a large diversity of MMO's upcoming already between 2000-2005 who had sub numbers between 50k-500.000k that were doing fine. But since WoW those numbers are suddenly not enough and for many a sign that a game is just "niche" (in my eyes "niche" is a term to describe a specific brand of gameplay, not of sub numbers, but ok).
Distortion? That is called PROGRESS.
Take SP games for examples. 20 years ago, a game which sells 50-100k copies are good. Now you need a few million copies to be a hit. Distortion by DOOM, Diablo and other blockbuster?
No it is just progress. Just like movies. Bigger market, bigger audience, bigger productions. You cannot turn back the clock and use criterion 10 years ago to define success.
And of course 100k is no longer enough. Production costs is much higher. Look at how much EQ cost and how much a modern AAA MMO cost and tell me you can use the same criterion.
Look at TOR, it needs a lot more than 100k to just break even.
I find something troubling in all of this.
Does a developer need to sell far more copies then before to be on the top 10 list of games sold. Yes.
Does a developer need to sell that many copies to make as much money (in todays dollars) as they did in the past? No.
what I mean is that you dont have to sell as many copies that Billizard does to be personally crazy successful. You do however have to pull more and more players away from the triple A titles, which in my view wouldnt be as hard as one might think outside of adverting which is the main point really
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Even if market research exists, how do they pull it off in a manner which is actually beneficial to them? The thing is, that most modern big budget MMOs have flopped lately.
How do you count what is a safe bet and what is not, when the "safe bets" fail? The conclusion is, that there are no safe bets in the MMO business anymore. It's obvious that the mimicking technique often used with single-player games doesn't work with MMOs. Sandbox doesn't mean that it's automatically for a niche community, either. SWG proves this to some extent. Sure, if the sandbox has a too steep learning curve for the casual player, it becomes a niche game, like EVE Online. It's not the sandbox itself which makes it a niche. Not at all.
Doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is still on the ones claiming that an old school MMO would be successful and the elements they present are wanted...
And doesn't change the fact that the 'present status quo' should be able to refute challenges. One argumentative fallacy is not any less than another.
It is a fair assumption that game developers conduct market research, though I can not offer any actual piece of market research (it's usually classified), logic dictates that it happens. It is also quite commonly taught in investment courses that knowing your market is important and investors generally do not invest in projects which is not founded in market research. These factors contribute to the claim that companies perform market research being a fact.
An extention to this claim is that companies use the lessons learned in their market research when they make their games, otherwise the market research would be a wasted exercise and management would mislead the owners. As this is illegal in western countries, and lawsuits are a matter of public record and would definately make the headlines here, it can be claimed as a fact.
As old school enthusiasts claim that no new game includes the aspects of 'what made old school games great' it can therefore, by extention, be claimed as fact that the market research did not support the evidence that these aspects indeed are as popular as the enthusiasts claim.
Thus, by the use of strong assumptions and a chain of logic, one can conlude that it is a fact that old school mmorpg's and the elements they had which are not present in newer games, is not supported by market research.
I also think that WoW distorted the way people regard the MMO market. Before WoW a subscription number of 100k-500k was a healthy number for a MMO - Everquest got in its days as good attention from the media as WoW, Second Life and Farmville get - and there was a large diversity of MMO's upcoming already between 2000-2005 who had sub numbers between 50k-500.000k that were doing fine. But since WoW those numbers are suddenly not enough and for many a sign that a game is just "niche" (in my eyes "niche" is a term to describe a specific brand of gameplay, not of sub numbers, but ok).
Distortion? That is called PROGRESS.
Take SP games for examples. 20 years ago, a game which sells 50-100k copies are good. Now you need a few million copies to be a hit. Distortion by DOOM, Diablo and other blockbuster?
No it is just progress. Just like movies. Bigger market, bigger audience, bigger productions. You cannot turn back the clock and use criterion 10 years ago to define success.
And of course 100k is no longer enough. Production costs is much higher. Look at how much EQ cost and how much a modern AAA MMO cost and tell me you can use the same criterion.
Look at TOR, it needs a lot more than 100k to just break even.
And then take a look at GW2 or 40k MMO or the already released Allods or DDO. 100k is more than plenty of subscribers to sustain a AAA MMO these days.
It's not always 'bigger bigger bigger' as you seem to think.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
And people keep saying Eve as proof and you guys keep ignoring it. So, ultimately you don't want to hear any proof is what it seems to be. You say "give me proof" when in fact nothing that could ever be said will be accepted.
Which means you'd be asked to demonstrate that people are playing EvE for it's supposed old-school aspects and not for other reasons, like it's the only real sci-fi game on the market. Can you do that?
Can I what, continue to jump through the endless set of hoops you'll keep manufacturing if I do answer each point? No. As I said above no matter what answers are giving and how true they ring you and others will never accept them. So there's no point.
I'm not manufacturing anything, you keep making claims. You said that people are playing EvE for it's old-school elements. I asked you to prove that. You cannot. You just keep getting upset that someone dares to question your bald-faced assertions. I'm not asking you to back up anything more than you've claimed as reality. If you can't do so, at least be honest and admit it.
Even if market research exists, how do they pull it off in a manner which is actually beneficial to them? The thing is, that most modern big budget MMOs have flopped lately.
How do you count what is a safe bet and what is not, when the "safe bets" fail? The conclusion is, that there are no safe bets in the MMO business anymore. It's obvious that the mimicking technique often used with single-player games doesn't work with MMOs. Sandbox doesn't mean that it's automatically for a niche community, either. SWG proves this to some extent. Sure, if the sandbox has a too steep learning curve for the casual player, it becomes a niche game, like EVE Online. It's not the sandbox itself which makes it a niche. Not at all.
Product flops are quite common - the failure rate of new products are around 80% if i recall correctly. Market research is actually much better in finding what consumers absolutely do no want instead of what they do want...
Comments
You're missing the entire point. These companies are doing the market research and they are making games based on that market research. The fact that they are not making old-school games is evidence that their research says there isn't any money in it. If there was, they'd be making them!
However, I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims, that goes to the old-schoolers who keep insisting that there's a massive untapped market of people dying for an old-school game. I keep asking them to prove it, since apparently the marketing arm of every major P2P developer out there can't seem to find it, and they fail miserably to back up their claims.
So do try again, won't you?
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
And people keep saying Eve as proof and you guys keep ignoring it. So, ultimately you don't want to hear any proof is what it seems to be. You say "give me proof" when in fact nothing that could ever be said will be accepted.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
So what you are saying is that you already have a game that fits all your criteria? Then why is this thread even created?!
They are punch drunk on catching Wow at its own game. They aren't doing market research for anything else except for "what do you like/dislike about WoW?".
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Which means you'd be asked to demonstrate that people are playing EvE for it's supposed old-school aspects and not for other reasons, like it's the only real sci-fi game on the market. Can you do that?
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Really? You sure seem to know a lot about the market research arm of every P2P developer out there. Exactly how do you have this information, or is it yet another thing you just pulled out of your ass?
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
lol! I knew you were going to come back with that BS answer. Le sigh. By that logic, your WOW is there, why should you want any other games to play? If you were keeping up with this thread you'd see where I said why. Eve has it's hindrances (primarily being no humanoid avatar), and on top of that its Sci-Fi in a land dominated by Fantasy. Yet it still does well.
No wonder the world is as screwed up today as it is. People arguing against something that wouldn't affect them in either way. They just don't want others to have it so they argue loud and proud against it.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
I was...no, wait, I have already asked the same of you. You're the one who initiated making such "market research" statements yet have not produced any evidence showing that you make your claims from fact. Indeed, it was you who went to the ass first.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Can I what, continue to jump through the endless set of hoops you'll keep manufacturing if I do answer each point? No. As I said above no matter what answers are giving and how true they ring you and others will never accept them. So there's no point.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
I think the thread I made yesterday fits what's going on in this thread quite well.
http://knucklecloud.blogspot.com/
So EvE is and old school game which isn't an old school game, or isn't enough of an old school game. And a few pages back I got criticized for saying FFA full loot PvP was a feature old schooler's wanted..
How would a developer wasting 5 years making a game I will most likely not play vs making a game I will most likely play not affect me? If you get a game you like that's awesome for you, not so much for me. Game developers are a scarce resource, and focusing on you means not focusing on me.
If you don't intend to back up claims you should avoid making them in the first place.
I have no idea what you are saying about Eve so I'm not going to touch that part, lol.
On to the second part. Aercus, assuming you are on the opposite side (which I've come to believe, please correct if you feel the need) all of the modern AAA games in development are for you already. The situation that you are trying to illustrate here as a hypothetical for you is an actual for us. So when talking games in development, yeah, you should now be able to appreciate where we are coming from and if say 5 games are made, I don't see how 1 of the 5 being made toward us will negatively impact you. You still have 4 choices to our 1. Currently, using the same 5 number, we have 0 choices to your 5.
Again, this isn't a charge to completely start making all games one way (which currently they are doing but doing it your way). If they were making them all my way then I'm sure you'd be upset and voicing a desire for some variety. The only difference is I wouldn't be here trying to shout you down or lecture you on business 101 and economics 101. No, I'd be here saying "You know what, variety is good. They should do something in the manner you describe for you and those you want what you want".
But, that's how I was raised. *shrug*
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
So should he. And again, you ignore the rest of what I wrote here and the fact that no matter what is stated it'll never be accepted so why play such a pointless game.
Edit: And now I have stuff to do and can't respond to posts so...I guess I'll check back later tonight. Have a great day all!
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Through the years I have tried and not liked (chronologically) EQ, AO, WoW, VG, TR, EQ2, EVE. Games that I have liked for a while were LoTRO, FE, and AoC. Only games which looks like something I'll like that's on the horizon are SW:TOR and SW, but no guarantees. The rest of the games which are coming up looks blah, and there are a number of games with old school elements coming up (some would include Alganon, FFXIV, Earthrise, MO). There are not a lot of AAA's on the horizon now, but a bunch of niche games are coming up - most look completely unappealing.
And doesn't change the fact that the 'present status quo' should be able to refute challenges. One argumentative fallacy is not any less than another.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
There hasn't been anything to show that oldschool MMOs aren't profitable. So far, they have a much more profitable track record than WoW clones. One would probably do very well.
Distortion? That is called PROGRESS.
Take SP games for examples. 20 years ago, a game which sells 50-100k copies are good. Now you need a few million copies to be a hit. Distortion by DOOM, Diablo and other blockbuster?
No it is just progress. Just like movies. Bigger market, bigger audience, bigger productions. You cannot turn back the clock and use criterion 10 years ago to define success.
And of course 100k is no longer enough. Production costs is much higher. Look at how much EQ cost and how much a modern AAA MMO cost and tell me you can use the same criterion.
Look at TOR, it needs a lot more than 100k to just break even.
1. No proof that 'these companies' are 'doing market research'. Star Wars NGE? WAR? Aion? Clearly the 'research' that was being done was very faulty.
2. If something is NOT being done, that is in no way evidence that it is DUE TO indications of the 'market'. It could, for simple example, be simply due to the fact that it hasn't dawned on anyone, hasn't yet been tried, hasn't been done properly... Your conclusion takes a leap of faith based on facts you do not own. It's an assumption, not a proof.
3. Old schoolers on this backwater forum, on prime-time forums like EJ, AJ, mmo-champion, curse amongst others have been whining about certain changes, and cheering for others. Concerning challenge, empirically if I cared to count, I'm sure I could tally up at least a thousand screen names alone that claim a desire to reinstate 'meaning' or something equal to that affect. Being an engineer and knowing all too much about statistics and sample sizes, I would also be able to conclude, scientifically mind you, that this is but a segment of gamers in a pool that I will never be able to sample properly in its entirety. But given my empirical findings, I could also safely conclude that there are many others out there, enough to make a game that 'caters to them' that would draw 10 thousand, 100 thousand? based on their desired concepts alone.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
I find something troubling in all of this.
Does a developer need to sell far more copies then before to be on the top 10 list of games sold. Yes.
Does a developer need to sell that many copies to make as much money (in todays dollars) as they did in the past? No.
what I mean is that you dont have to sell as many copies that Billizard does to be personally crazy successful. You do however have to pull more and more players away from the triple A titles, which in my view wouldnt be as hard as one might think outside of adverting which is the main point really
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Even if market research exists, how do they pull it off in a manner which is actually beneficial to them? The thing is, that most modern big budget MMOs have flopped lately.
How do you count what is a safe bet and what is not, when the "safe bets" fail? The conclusion is, that there are no safe bets in the MMO business anymore. It's obvious that the mimicking technique often used with single-player games doesn't work with MMOs. Sandbox doesn't mean that it's automatically for a niche community, either. SWG proves this to some extent. Sure, if the sandbox has a too steep learning curve for the casual player, it becomes a niche game, like EVE Online. It's not the sandbox itself which makes it a niche. Not at all.
http://knucklecloud.blogspot.com/
It is a fair assumption that game developers conduct market research, though I can not offer any actual piece of market research (it's usually classified), logic dictates that it happens. It is also quite commonly taught in investment courses that knowing your market is important and investors generally do not invest in projects which is not founded in market research. These factors contribute to the claim that companies perform market research being a fact.
An extention to this claim is that companies use the lessons learned in their market research when they make their games, otherwise the market research would be a wasted exercise and management would mislead the owners. As this is illegal in western countries, and lawsuits are a matter of public record and would definately make the headlines here, it can be claimed as a fact.
As old school enthusiasts claim that no new game includes the aspects of 'what made old school games great' it can therefore, by extention, be claimed as fact that the market research did not support the evidence that these aspects indeed are as popular as the enthusiasts claim.
Thus, by the use of strong assumptions and a chain of logic, one can conlude that it is a fact that old school mmorpg's and the elements they had which are not present in newer games, is not supported by market research.
And then take a look at GW2 or 40k MMO or the already released Allods or DDO. 100k is more than plenty of subscribers to sustain a AAA MMO these days.
It's not always 'bigger bigger bigger' as you seem to think.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
I'm not manufacturing anything, you keep making claims. You said that people are playing EvE for it's old-school elements. I asked you to prove that. You cannot. You just keep getting upset that someone dares to question your bald-faced assertions. I'm not asking you to back up anything more than you've claimed as reality. If you can't do so, at least be honest and admit it.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Product flops are quite common - the failure rate of new products are around 80% if i recall correctly. Market research is actually much better in finding what consumers absolutely do no want instead of what they do want...