Passion for a (virtual) world

osmunda

This is an attempt to respond to slapshot without straying from the original topic of that thread  http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/297466   :

 

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Originally posted by osmunda

 

@Quintillian:    I mostly agree with your point.  MO (and Darkfall and EVE) have shown that a significant portion of the MMO playerbase are looking for something very different from the more theme park style of most mmos.  

 What do you consider this "significant portion of the MMO playerbase" that MO has shown are looking for something very different?  I agree EVE has done so.. Darkfall I would really doubt has had much impact playerwise... but MO?  Do you really think that the MO playerbase is a significant portion of the MMO playerbase?   This isn't a knock on anything or anyone but given the population numbers and the shortfall in subscribers openly admited to by the CEO... I think it's a stretch to say that MO has had any impact at all on the overall MMO playerbase.   I don't think you can draw any conclusions at all about the general MMO population from what is seen in MO... 

"Significant portion of the MMO playerbase" is an intentionally vague term.  Even if you combine EVE, Darkfall, and MO, they are still dwarfed by WOW. This "significant portion" was not meant to refer any one of the games or to the actual numbers of subscribers. 

All three of them have some things in common that set them apart from the bulk of MMOs out there. How well each executes them

---  Pervasive PVP   At no time are you immune to PVP in any of these games.The cost of initiating PVP may vary widely depending on location, but it is always possible, unlike most games.

--- Player defined "factions"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_versus_Realm  With only two factions (EQ, EQ2, WOW)  the weaker side needs a fairly large "safe zone" or to get artificially propped up in some way, or the game will be extremely lopsided.  Additional factions (DaOC, AO, The Secret World, Fallen earth) reduces that need, since any faction that gets too powerful will find itself fighting on multiple fronts.  The more factions there are the more complicated the interactions between factions can be

--- Territory control   control of  resources, control of the game map.  Allow you to feel a sense of "your" place in the world

--- Player economy   The finished goods are dependent on people actually making them. The most valuable items are there because someone made it, not because you finished quest X from the latest expansion.

---Based primarily around player interaction, not predetermined story lines.

Ultimately, all of them are striving to create a virtual world.  Unfortunately the general trend is away from that type of game http://www.raphkoster.com/2010/11/12/not-an-mmo-anymore/ Where they succeed AND where they fail helps "set the gorund in terms of ideas for what is wanted by the playerbase."  The fact that you (slapshot) are still here criticizing the game long   after deciding you will never play it shows just how much you want a game like MO is intended to be (same for hanoverz, davmac, rlmccoy, hercules,etc)  The fact that rlmccoy preordered Darkfall, MO AND Xsyon (and has been disappointed by the first two and fallen silent on the third) shows that some people are willing to take a chance on any game that seems to fit the bill.

My statement about a "significant portion of the MMO playerbase" was not referring to the actual population of MO, it was referring to the people who want the type of game MO strives to be.  As I said the only game on the horizon that looks more promising (without making me play a spaceship)  IMHO is WoD . In the meantime, I'll stick with MO.

 

 

 

 

 

Slapshot1188

My comment was not asking what specifics people are looking for.. but rather curiosity how you would state that MO (and Darkfall and Eve) represented a "significant portion of the MMO playerbase".  Contrary to this post, the use of the word significant indicates quantity.  In particular.. it indicates a quantity worthy of notice.  You also specifically link that to MO, and then associate MO with the populations of EVE and Darkfall as though by default they are all the same.

So.. perhaps it was just a poor choice of words and it would read better without the use of the word significant. 

 

So I agree that there are people looking for everything you described.  I do NOT agree that MO has demonstrated there is a significant portion of the MMO playerbase looking for it.  If anything.. a potential publisher would look and see the EVE established itself well, then a few years later Darkfall came and has struggled to hold a population, then Mortal came and drew and even smaller slice of the MMO population.  

 

The only conclusion to draw would be that either quality has dwindled and/or people who enjoy this type of game are happy with their current game and not eager to switch (thus we have reached market saturation point).

 

TLDR: The gist of your quote to Quintillian was that perhaps other publishers would take note of the level of interest interest in Mortal Online and draw the conclusion that a significant portion of the MMO playerbase was loooking for a similar game and perhaps make one with better resources.  My point is that if a publisher was looking at MO the only conclusion to draw based on population would be that there is no significant  interest in such a game.   Which I believe is wrong, I believe MO failed not because of the type of game it was, but rather because of the people that made it.  But that is for a different thread.

Qunitillian

I think if we take this idea of  a sandbox, pvp etc. and consider games such as EvE, Darkfall, UO etc, then yes the potential player base is non-trivial;  that is it is significant. This is different from saying a 'significant portion of the total mmo consumer base' IMO. In terms of hype and proposed game systems, we could say that interest is high in games that purport such systems such as MO and those I cite above.

What we lack are competent developers who are able to deliver on such designs. Yes, this is very heavily influenced by the way the market is structured with respects to the risk associated with investment in development costs. I think the only feasible way that we as a player-base will see games of the type cited above, particularly given the economic climate, is if they are developed by competent and devoted developers part time ala the modding community. Once they have something concrete then they could perhaps seek to turn their efforts into a profit making venture. 

Ultimately what I object to is the total disregard for this idea of professionalism from those designing and producing mmos; that a dev team thinks it can pass on the risk to its player-base, both with respects to the dev team first learning how to use the tools and middleware and then deploying them to make a game. MMO players should not be treated as a funding source for the development of  an mmo, to what most would recognise as 'gold status'.

osmunda

Once again, I used the term "significant portion" as an intentionally vague term to avoid quantifying it.  Virtually any number would be dwarfed by WOW http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html . A Tale in the Desert has apparently never broken 3000 subscriptions, but is still operating after 6 years http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart3.html  implying that 3000 is sufficient if your cost of operations is low enough.  The number of subscribers needed to keep a game operating and continue development is a "significant number".  Since both of you feel the need to quantify my deliberately vague term, let's just use 3000 as the definition of "significant" with the proviso that it requires low overhead.

The term also was not meant to refer to the actual population of the games, but to the number of people with an interest in the games and potentially the number of people that would be playing them if it met their expectations.  There's no denying that all of the games aroused a level of interest far exceeding that "significant" mark.  All three games have features that decrease interest from many people who would otherwise be interested.  EVE- when your avatar is a spaceship, many people just don't feel attached to the game; the pacing of much of the game (the non-combat portions) turns some people off. http://tobolds.blogspot.com/2009/09/pacing-excitement.html    Darkfall--  All PVP all the time, EVE has 0.0 space, MO has guarded cities, the only modicum of safety in DF is having enough of your guild members around that someone attacking you would be commiting suicide     MO--   I concede that the game would have benefitted from more time in development, and needed to release earlier than it should have because of finances, but I'm sure anything specific that I say will later be used against me, so let's leave it at that.    If a virtual world game could be made, while avoiding the things that keep people away from those three games,  it's fairly clear that it would appeal to a "significant" number of people.

MO has some of the most passionate critics,  I've ever seen. People who dismissed the game as "abyssmal" months ago are still here on a regular basis.  To arouse that type of passion, obviously MO appealed to them but failed to live up to their expectations.  If a game could be made that fit those expectations, they might be just as passionate as advocates.

I did not argue that the populations of these games would draw in other developers "perhaps other publishers would take note of the level of interest interest in Mortal Online and draw the conclusion that a significant portion of the MMO playerbase was loooking for a similar game and perhaps make one with better resources." only stated the hope that someone would at some point.  World of Darkness is the only one I see as having a reasonable chance of doing better than MO and DF.  It is being produced by CCP which is obviously no stranger to this type of game.

osmunda

Originally posted by Qunitillian

 

What we lack are competent developers who are able to deliver on such designs. Yes, this is very heavily influenced by the way the market is structured with respects to the risk associated with investment in development costs. I think the only feasible way that we as a player-base will see games of the type cited above, particularly given the economic climate, is if they are developed by competent and devoted developers part time ala the modding community. Once they have something concrete then they could perhaps seek to turn their efforts into a profit making venture. 

 

Creating a virtual world is extremely complicated. Expecting the modding community to succeed where full time developers have failed is a pipe dream IMHO. For the time being I chose to support the game that I feel comes closest.

Slapshot1188

Originally posted by osmunda

Once again, I used the term "significant portion" as an intentionally vague term to avoid quantifying it.  Virtually any number would be dwarfed by WOW http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html . A Tale in the Desert has apparently never broken 3000 subscriptions, but is still operating after 6 years http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart3.html  implying that 3000 is sufficient if your cost of operations is low enough.  The number of subscribers needed to keep a game operating and continue development is a "significant number".  Since both of you feel the need to quantify my deliberately vague term, let's just use 3000 as the definition of "significant" with the proviso that it requires low overhead.

The term also was not meant to refer to the actual population of the games, but to the number of people with an interest in the games and potentially the number of people that would be playing them if it met their expectations.  There's no denying that all of the games aroused a level of interest far exceeding that "significant" mark.  All three games have features that decrease interest from many people who would otherwise be interested.  EVE- when your avatar is a spaceship, many people just don't feel attached to the game; the pacing of much of the game (the non-combat portions) turns some people off. http://tobolds.blogspot.com/2009/09/pacing-excitement.html    Darkfall--  All PVP all the time, EVE has 0.0 space, MO has guarded cities, the only modicum of safety in DF is having enough of your guild members around that someone attacking you would be commiting suicide     MO--   I concede that the game would have benefitted from more time in development, and needed to release earlier than it should have because of finances, but I'm sure anything specific that I say will later be used against me, so let's leave it at that.    If a virtual world game could be made, while avoiding the things that keep people away from those three games,  it's fairly clear that it would appeal to a "significant" number of people.

MO has some of the most passionate critics,  I've ever seen. People who dismissed the game as "abyssmal" months ago are still here on a regular basis.  To arouse that type of passion, obviously MO appealed to them but failed to live up to their expectations.  If a game could be made that fit those expectations, they might be just as passionate as advocates.

I did not argue that the populations of these games would draw in other developers "perhaps other publishers would take note of the level of interest interest in Mortal Online and draw the conclusion that a significant portion of the MMO playerbase was loooking for a similar game and perhaps make one with better resources." only stated the hope that someone would at some point.  World of Darkness is the only one I see as having a reasonable chance of doing better than MO and DF.  It is being produced by CCP which is obviously no stranger to this type of game.

 Sorry.. but you once again state that you used the word significant "to avoid quantifying it" as the word when used in the context you used it in, clearly IS about quantity.  As I said, you would have been better off simply not using the word. So again I will state that the failure of MO will in no way encourage another developer.   The best we can hope is that any future developer write-off the failure of Mortal Online as a result of poor development and NOT as a reflection of the overall demand for a sandbox genre game.

osmunda

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

 

 Sorry.. but you once again state that you used the word significant "to avoid quantifying it" as the word when used in the context you used it in, clearly IS about quantity.  As I said, you would have been better off simply not using the word. So again I will state that the failure of MO will in no way encourage another developer.   The best we can hope is that any future developer write-off the failure of Mortal Online as a result of poor development and NOT as a reflection of the overall demand for a sandbox genre game.

Pure semantics--- if you don't want semantics don't read this post (meaning mine)

Fair enough, perhaps quantify was not the best word. What I meant was "avoid delineating a specific number or percentage of the MMO community".  Now could you tell me specifically what "significant" means in this context? Is it the minimum sustainable population as provided by me when I mentioned A Tale in the Desert or some other number?

osmunda

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

 Sorry.. but you once again state that you used the word significant "to avoid quantifying it" as the word when used in the context you used it in, clearly IS about quantity.  As I said, you would have been better off simply not using the word. So again I will state that the failure of MO will in no way encourage another developer.   The best we can hope is that any future developer write-off the failure of Mortal Online as a result of poor development and NOT as a reflection of the overall demand for a sandbox genre game.

Reread the last paragraph of the post you quoted., Perhaps you missed the part where I noted that the developers of EVE are the only ones that I think are likely to develop a better MMO along these lines.

Slapshot1188

Originally posted by osmunda

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

 

 Sorry.. but you once again state that you used the word significant "to avoid quantifying it" as the word when used in the context you used it in, clearly IS about quantity.  As I said, you would have been better off simply not using the word. So again I will state that the failure of MO will in no way encourage another developer.   The best we can hope is that any future developer write-off the failure of Mortal Online as a result of poor development and NOT as a reflection of the overall demand for a sandbox genre game.

Pure semantics--- if you don't want semantics don't read this post (meaning mine)

Fair enough, perhaps quantify was not the best word. What I meant was "avoid delineating a specific number or percentage of the MMO community".  Now could you tell me specifically what "significant" means in this context? Is it the minimum sustainable population as provided by me when I mentioned A Tale in the Desert or some other number?

 Sorry, but this has gotten to be a silly thread of revisionist meanings.  It is clear what you meant by the use of significant and it had nothing to do with ATITD which you didnt even mention until your 2nd post in this 2nd thread. 

I made my point.  You got the point.  Have a good day.

Qunitillian

Just to engage with one slight divergent point. When I say developed ala the modding community, I don't mean developed by modders. Rather I mean developed by competent devs but on a part time basis, using a more user friendly middle-ware package, such as the Hero engine. The idea here is that 1) there is little chance of investment for games of the type we are talking about and 2) developing as a mod allows us players to engage with the development through testing it and even contributing to its development 3) such a development style engenders a better community 4) if good people get hooked in its 'free to play' development stage. We could, instead, call it an open source development, the difference being that it switches to pay to play when at the accepted standard / quality.

osmunda

Originally posted by Qunitillian

Just to engage with one slight divergent point. When I say developed ala the modding community, I don't mean developed by modders. Rather I mean developed by competent devs but on a part time basis, using a more user friendly middle-ware package, such as the Hero engine. 

Ahh.       Development of a virtual world as a side project for someone (or a team) is certainly more likely than development by hobbyist.  It still would face many obstacles.  1) Intellectual property rights- Depending on the specifics of their contracts anything tangible created while employed by a gaming company could become the intellectual property of the employer. Obviously any project that is a lemon will be left alone, but any level of success might result in a legal battle over that intellectual property  2) Non-compete clauses -again this would depend on the specifics of peoples contracts. but could certainly put a damper on cooperation between people at different gaming companies  3) full blown MMO s are extremely complicated so it's unlikely that a small team would be able to devote enough time to development (without pay) 

Certainly what you describe can be a hotbed for innovation and could certainly spur the development of MMO-like games.  To make it manageable for a small team, I think it is likely that one or more elements of what makes an MMO would need to be stripped out giving you an MMO-like game rather than a full-blown modern MMO. There are already several examples of this: MUDs/MOOs , Mount and Blade, Minecraft and Love.  Mount and Blade, Minecraft and Love are all "virtual worlds" in ways that no current MMO even approach.

osmunda

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

 Sorry, but this has gotten to be a silly thread of revisionist meanings.  It is clear what you meant by the use of significant and it had nothing to do with ATITD which you didnt even mention until your 2nd post in this 2nd thread. 

I made my point.  You got the point.  Have a good day.

It seems that you and I have an unusual ability to argue around each other.

You have made your point. It just isn't particularly relevant to what I have posted.  Whether intentional or not you seem to be arguing against an interpretation of what I have posted that is so different from my actual posts that it becomes almost a straw man argument.

original statement:   "I mostly agree with your [quintillian's] point.  MO (and Darkfall and EVE) have shown that a significant portion of the MMO playerbase are looking for something very different from the more theme park style of most mmos. "

What I meant by that : "The interest level in MO, Darkfall and EVE show that a significant number of people are looking for something very different from the more theme park style of most MMOs"                                                        "Interest level" includes current subscribers,  previous subscribers,  people who are interested but never subscribe because "it's not finished yet", "there are too many bugs", "I don't like being forced to join a guild", "All PVP, all the time is just a little too much", "I just can't get into being a spaceship" etc.  "Interest level"  even includes the most vocal critics since those critics obviously were interested in the game they thought they would get, even if they are bitterly disappointed in what actually gets released.

Straw man argument:   "The current population of Mortal online is so large/significant that it will inspire other developers to make virtual worlds / sandbox games"                                                                           Most of your points seem to be an attempt to refute this argument, which I have not made. Further, that straw man argument seems at odds with my repeated point that the most likely game to improve on the virtual world model is the World of Darkness MMO, already in development, by the creators of EVE.

Slapshot1188

I'm sorry but this is the 3rd.. (4th) different explanation you have given.. and to be honest.. it's just not worth spending that much time on.  As I said... have a great day.

Toferio

Originally posted by osmunda

 "I mostly agree with your [quintillian's] point.  MO (and Darkfall and EVE) have shown that a significant portion of the MMO playerbase are looking for something very different from the more theme park style of most mmos. "

I do wonder how you came to the conclussion that 350k outta what, 25+ millions is a significant portion..

Qunitillian

---

Originally posted by Toferio

---

Originally posted by osmunda


 "I mostly agree with your [quintillian's] point.  MO (and Darkfall and EVE) have shown that a significant portion of the MMO playerbase are looking for something very different from the more theme park style of most mmos. "

---

I do wonder how you came to the conclussion that 350k outta what, 25+ millions is a significant portion..

---

This is why I think my qualified (not quantified) definition of 'significant' i.e. non-trivial, is a good working definition.

osmunda

Originally posted by Toferio

Originally posted by osmunda

 "I mostly agree with your [quintillian's] point.  MO (and Darkfall and EVE) have shown that a significant portion of the MMO playerbase are looking for something very different from the more theme park style of most mmos. "

I do wonder how you came to the conclussion that 350k outta what, 25+ millions is a significant portion..

I think that quintillian's distinction that the absolute numbers are significant (non-trivial) although it is fairly small percentage wise. That is to say, I think it can support multiple games of that style that would be commercially successful (not necessarily the current ones), but will likely have little to no impact on the general direction of MMO design.

There's no denying that WOW is the 800 pound gorilla dominating the field http://users.telenet.be/mmodata/Charts/Subs-1.png .http://users.telenet.be/mmodata/Charts/Subs-2.png . Depending on your cutoff, it's possible to claim that WOW is the only significant MMORPG. Going by current subscription numbers, the ones bigger/more significant than EVE are AION, Lineage (1&2), Runescape, and Dofus.

osmunda

Just to go back to one of the things that prompted this thread in the first place http://www.raphkoster.com/2010/11/12/not-an-mmo-anymore/ here's someone's vision of the future of MMO's, from the blog of the designer of UO, the first online virtual world with graphics, followed by Raph's commentary on it.

 

• 
  a single-player or co-op multiplayer campaign you can play through that is heavily narrative
• 
  a matchmaking lobby where you can select between types of games to play with other players
• 
  games include group PvP matches or co-op matches against the AI
• 
  A UI screen where you purchase upgraded gear and character attributes for real money

As he describes the game, it of course sounds like an FPS game with matchmaking, and that is exactly his point.

He’s not really advocating the evolution of the MMO in this direction; he’s merely saying it is inevitable.

But I think that it is also important to note that this isn’t a virtual world at all.

If we drop any pretense at roleplaying, there are MMOs out that dwarf WOW http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/welcome-to-farmville-population-80-million-1906260.html  That exerts a strong influence on people's ideas about game development. Dustymonk's vision of the future of MMO's sounds like some combination of Facebook games and Xbox live.

My intent in this thread was to point out that there is a significant interest in games developing in the other direction (i.e. more of a virtual world and less of a casual lobby based game) 

 

Originally posted by Qunitillian

I guess people bothered with the game because the game design on paper is really, really good. In a way MO has been positive in this respect; that is it has set the gorund in terms of ideas for what is wanted by the playerbase. Hopefully these ideas can be picked up and better executed by others, this is my sincere hope.

Rohn

I agree with Osmunda - I believe there is a significant interest in "virtual world" type games.

That doesn't mean it's the dominant interest, but there is a significant amount of interest in such a game that game companies could develop games that tap into that market and be successful (i.e. make a sufficient profit from it).

A game does not need "WoW numbers" to be successful or profitable.  In that regard, WoW is an aberration.  No other Western MMO has ever gotten close, even the games that have been considered successful in the past.