Archeage, though not entirely sandbox, flopped unfortunately.
Star citizen is still trolling.
Camelot unchained/crowfall still mia.
Is CU even a sandbox? I thought it was all about the RvR à la DAoC?
And this site only represents a tiny, tiny fraction of the entire MMO playerbase. Just because a few loud elements are clamoring for it doesn't mean that the demand is as great as they claim.
The reason you see so few sandboxes is because none of them ever hit it big. UO's probably the most successful of the bunch, but WoW pretty much blew it out of the water when it released.
Vanguard and SWG both died after struggling for years, and Archeage seems to be a moderate success (not exactly the kind of thing that gets investor itching to jump on the bandwagon).
Games like Darkfall and the like aren't even worth mentioning, as they all have tiny playerbases.
EVE's doing pretty well, but it's not huge either. And good luck trying to steal EVE's players for a new game, given what they've got invested in their current game.
SWG did not "struggle for years". It struggled after NGE. It was a wildly popular game prior to Smedley throwing his sabot into the gears, after which it might as well have been a crappy WoW clone. Many players decided that WoW was doing WoW better than SWG and jumped ship.
It struggled from the beginning. Many of the complaints from the start (beyond the bugs and gross imbalances) were that it wasn't Star Wars. It's was a Uncle Owen Simulator... That there was less adventure and more hairstyling than in any other game in existence.
Even at its height it had less than 250,000 subscribers. This is less than half of EQ had and a tiny fraction of what WoW showed the world was possible. 'Wildly successful' is hardly an accurate assessment of the Hairstyling, Chef cooking, Interior decorating adventures of Bland So Low.
Not Starwarsy enough, that sounds like just another of the soundbites that was released by a certain person, who also claimed that there was too much reading in the game, it most certainly wasn't a complaint by the players at the time, and as for struggling, the game had 250k players at its peak, which at the time was probably more than were playing EQ1, the problem was, they wanted WoW's playerbase, and it wasn't happening, but it wasn't struggling, nor is Eve Online struggling at only having 500k, or 350k - 400k. SWG didn't 'struggle' until SOE decided that they needed to have millions of players, instead of hundreds of thousands, but the arguments against the game were not that it wasn't Starwarsy enough, that was just a management level PR excuse to explain away why they were burning their existing playerbase in the hope of enticing in the WoW crowd, needless to say, it didn't work.
where the **** are the games for the hype? Still not a single new decent Sandbox-Release till today. What are the companies doing? Chilling and sleeping?I cant understant that....
Sandbox, PvP, and Old School difficulty players seem to have the worst habit of insisting their community is large enough for a centric.game of their own. They are not, as proven time and time again.
How many of those members do you think are actually active?
3. Me, you and the mod who keeps banning me.
LOL!
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
where the **** are the games for the hype? Still not a single new decent Sandbox-Release till today. What are the companies doing? Chilling and sleeping?
I cant understant that....
Sandbox, PvP, and Old School difficulty players seem to have the worst habit of insisting their community is large enough for a centric.game of their own. They are not, as proven time and time again.
Interesting, and how is this proven?
Lack of demand. Its generally accepted that the mmorpg market is a fraction of the gaming market and in turn the sandbox market is a fraction of the mmorpg market. That's a small market to aim an expensive development with a large maintenance bill at.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Archeage, though not entirely sandbox, flopped unfortunately.
Star citizen is still trolling.
Camelot unchained/crowfall still mia.
Is CU even a sandbox? I thought it was all about the RvR à la DAoC?
And this site only represents a tiny, tiny fraction of the entire MMO playerbase. Just because a few loud elements are clamoring for it doesn't mean that the demand is as great as they claim.
The reason you see so few sandboxes is because none of them ever hit it big. UO's probably the most successful of the bunch, but WoW pretty much blew it out of the water when it released.
Vanguard and SWG both died after struggling for years, and Archeage seems to be a moderate success (not exactly the kind of thing that gets investor itching to jump on the bandwagon).
Games like Darkfall and the like aren't even worth mentioning, as they all have tiny playerbases.
EVE's doing pretty well, but it's not huge either. And good luck trying to steal EVE's players for a new game, given what they've got invested in their current game.
SWG did not "struggle for years". It struggled after NGE. It was a wildly popular game prior to Smedley throwing his sabot into the gears, after which it might as well have been a crappy WoW clone. Many players decided that WoW was doing WoW better than SWG and jumped ship.
It struggled from the beginning. Many of the complaints from the start (beyond the bugs and gross imbalances) were that it wasn't Star Wars. It's was a Uncle Owen Simulator... That there was less adventure and more hairstyling than in any other game in existence.
Even at its height it had less than 250,000 subscribers. This is less than half of EQ had and a tiny fraction of what WoW showed the world was possible. 'Wildly successful' is hardly an accurate assessment of the Hairstyling, Chef cooking, Interior decorating adventures of Bland So Low.
Not Starwarsy enough, that sounds like just another of the soundbites that was released by a certain person, who also claimed that there was too much reading in the game, it most certainly wasn't a complaint by the players at the time, and as for struggling, the game had 250k players at its peak, which at the time was probably more than were playing EQ1, the problem was, they wanted WoW's playerbase, and it wasn't happening, but it wasn't struggling, nor is Eve Online struggling at only having 500k, or 350k - 400k. SWG didn't 'struggle' until SOE decided that they needed to have millions of players, instead of hundreds of thousands, but the arguments against the game were not that it wasn't Starwarsy enough, that was just a management level PR excuse to explain away why they were burning their existing playerbase in the hope of enticing in the WoW crowd, needless to say, it didn't work.
That soundbite was merly a echo from all the complaints we read on the official forums, it wasn't made up by one person. In fact anyone reading forums back then knew how many who left early felt about the game.
Those of us who wanted fixed who where actually enjoying the game where once again in the minority.
Originally posted by Ganksinatra Originally posted by Lonzo where the **** are the games for the hype? Still not a single new decent Sandbox-Release till today. What are the companies doing? Chilling and sleeping?I cant understant that....
Sandbox, PvP, and Old School difficulty players seem to have the worst habit of insisting their community is large enough for a centric.game of their own. They are not, as proven time and time again.
Interesting, and how is this proven?
Oh btw, this is just from 1 out of the hundreds of private servers:
Accounts: 138586
Characters: 83927
Noblesse: 6582
GM Online: 0
Banned: 199
Kills: 5918737
You're right, I see no people. Just like I see no people here either:
.....did you just quote private server stats to "prove" your garbage subgenre is popular enough to get its own game?
Capitalism 101: if it was popular enough, there would already be a AAA sandbox game. Those that have tried, have failed. Hard.
"Sandbox is super popular. We could make one of those!" "Nah. I don't really care for profit." .......said no CEO ever
Archeage, though not entirely sandbox, flopped unfortunately.
Star citizen is still trolling.
Camelot unchained/crowfall still mia.
And this site only represents a tiny, tiny fraction of the entire MMO playerbase.
Where did that come from?
seems...made up.
1) 3 million members is hardly "tiny tiny".
2) do you know who each of them represents?
It would be interesting to see the % of this 3million that don't play mmorpg's anymore.
To the OP: casuals took over, and developers changed to making games for money and not for something that is fun.
Here we go again. Trying to define something as subjective as fun which varies from person to person. Poor arguments as usual which gets us no where.
I speak the words that came directly from the developers. Not my fault you don't have any creative thinking skills on how it is possible to do a job you love over doing a job just for the money.
What? do you know what subjective even means? what is fun for you isn't fun for others and vice versa. Typical BS as usual.
Archeage, though not entirely sandbox, flopped unfortunately.
Star citizen is still trolling.
Camelot unchained/crowfall still mia.
And this site only represents a tiny, tiny fraction of the entire MMO playerbase.
Where did that come from?
seems...made up.
1) 3 million members is hardly "tiny tiny".
2) do you know who each of them represents?
It would be interesting to see the % of this 3million that don't play mmorpg's anymore.
To the OP: casuals took over, and developers changed to making games for money and not for something that is fun.
Here we go again. Trying to define something as subjective as fun which varies from person to person. Poor arguments as usual which gets us no where.
I speak the words that came directly from the developers. Not my fault you don't have any creative thinking skills on how it is possible to do a job you love over doing a job just for the money.
What? do you know what subjective even means? what is fun for you isn't fun for others and vice versa. Typical BS as usual.
Again, you missed the point. Did your parents never give you the speech about making sure you choose your career in something you love, and not something for the money, or you will be miserable?
My parents also taught me that its pointless to talk about something as subjective as FUN which differs from person to person. But please you may continue, as i am done here. No point arguing with people who think their idea of 'fun' is universal and should be applicable to everyone else. Or else they are all miserable.
Archeage, though not entirely sandbox, flopped unfortunately.
Star citizen is still trolling.
Camelot unchained/crowfall still mia.
And this site only represents a tiny, tiny fraction of the entire MMO playerbase.
Where did that come from?
seems...made up.
1) 3 million members is hardly "tiny tiny".
2) do you know who each of them represents?
It would be interesting to see the % of this 3million that don't play mmorpg's anymore.
To the OP: casuals took over, and developers changed to making games for money and not for something that is fun.
Here we go again. Trying to define something as subjective as fun which varies from person to person. Poor arguments as usual which gets us no where.
I speak the words that came directly from the developers. Not my fault you don't have any creative thinking skills on how it is possible to do a job you love over doing a job just for the money.
What? do you know what subjective even means? what is fun for you isn't fun for others and vice versa. Typical BS as usual.
Again, you missed the point. Did your parents never give you the speech about making sure you choose your career in something you love, and not something for the money, or you will be miserable?
My parents also taught me that its pointless to talk about something as subjective as FUN which differs from person to person. But please you may continue, as i am done here. No point arguing with people who think their idea of 'fun' is universal and should be applicable to everyone else. Or else they are all miserable.
You keep twisting what I said. It's clearly simple.
I am saying game developers work on these projects for the mass casuals strictly for the money, not because it is something they love doing. I don't know how much more simple I could have made this. Obviously you're parents never gave you this speech.
You're pulling things out your ass. Stop it. You do not speak for developers and what they do and don't like making. The ego on you, holy shit.
Originally posted by mrneurosis Originally posted by Vardahoth Originally posted by mrneurosis Originally posted by Vardahoth Originally posted by mrneurosis Originally posted by Vardahoth Originally posted by Robokapp Originally posted by Azaron_Nightblade Originally posted by Chrisbox Archeage, though not entirely sandbox, flopped unfortunately. Star citizen is still trolling. Camelot unchained/crowfall still mia.
And this site only represents a tiny, tiny fraction of the entire MMO playerbase.
Where did that come from?
seems...made up.
1) 3 million members is hardly "tiny tiny".
2) do you know who each of them represents?
It would be interesting to see the % of this 3million that don't play mmorpg's anymore.
To the OP: casuals took over, and developers changed to making games for money and not for something that is fun.
Here we go again. Trying to define something as subjective as fun which varies from person to person. Poor arguments as usual which gets us no where.
I speak the words that came directly from the developers. Not my fault you don't have any creative thinking skills on how it is possible to do a job you love over doing a job just for the money.
What? do you know what subjective even means? what is fun for you isn't fun for others and vice versa. Typical BS as usual.
Again, you missed the point. Did your parents never give you the speech about making sure you choose your career in something you love, and not something for the money, or you will be miserable?
My parents also taught me that its pointless to talk about something as subjective as FUN which differs from person to person. But please you may continue, as i am done here. No point arguing with people who think their idea of 'fun' is universal and should be applicable to everyone else. Or else they are all miserable.
You keep twisting what I said. It's clearly simple.
I am saying game developers work on these projects for the mass casuals strictly for the money, not because it is something they love doing. I don't know how much more simple I could have made this. Obviously you're parents never gave you this speech.
I understood just fine. Like I said, if it would make X% profit for the company, the game would exist. And since profit is more than likely tied to popularity, the transitive property would show thay the game type is not popular enough to warrant a game. But then again, you and I seem to understand rudimentary economics.
Archeage, though not entirely sandbox, flopped unfortunately.
Star citizen is still trolling.
Camelot unchained/crowfall still mia.
And this site only represents a tiny, tiny fraction of the entire MMO playerbase.
Where did that come from?
seems...made up.
1) 3 million members is hardly "tiny tiny".
2) do you know who each of them represents?
It would be interesting to see the % of this 3million that don't play mmorpg's anymore.
To the OP: casuals took over, and developers changed to making games for money and not for something that is fun.
Here we go again. Trying to define something as subjective as fun which varies from person to person. Poor arguments as usual which gets us no where.
I speak the words that came directly from the developers. Not my fault you don't have any creative thinking skills on how it is possible to do a job you love over doing a job just for the money.
What? do you know what subjective even means? what is fun for you isn't fun for others and vice versa. Typical BS as usual.
Again, you missed the point. Did your parents never give you the speech about making sure you choose your career in something you love, and not something for the money, or you will be miserable?
My parents also taught me that its pointless to talk about something as subjective as FUN which differs from person to person. But please you may continue, as i am done here. No point arguing with people who think their idea of 'fun' is universal and should be applicable to everyone else. Or else they are all miserable.
You keep twisting what I said. It's clearly simple.
I am saying game developers work on these projects for the mass casuals strictly for the money, not because it is something they love doing. I don't know how much more simple I could have made this. Obviously you're parents never gave you this speech.
You're pulling things out your ass. Stop it. You do not speak for developers and what they do and don't like making. The ego on you, holy shit.
Originally posted by Vardahoth
I speak the words that came directly from the developers.
From "developers". Oh my that does sound important. Developers a whole group of people that think alike. Developers not individuals but a hive mind. Man you sure are right, you've got the facts to back up all the shit you've pulled out your ass.
From "developers". Oh my that does sound important. Developers a whole group of people that think alike. Developers not individuals but a hive mind. Man you sure are right, you've got the facts to back up all the shit you've pulled out your ass.
Developers are spawned from a template.
They can't be filthy casuals. EVER.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
From "developers". Oh my that does sound important. Developers a whole group of people that think alike. Developers not individuals but a hive mind. Man you sure are right, you've got the facts to back up all the shit you've pulled out your ass.
Developers are spawned from a template.
They can't be filthy casuals. EVER.
I know right? Its not like people have different tastes. Here in the real world if a Developer makes a game not geared towards me, then he is doing it for that filthy filthy money and not because he wants to. The evil money forces his fingers to do unspeakable deeds like code a theme park.
Originally posted by Azaron_Nightblade Originally posted by RzepFrom "developers". Oh my that does sound important. Developers a whole group of people that think alike. Developers not individuals but a hive mind. Man you sure are right, you've got the facts to back up all the shit you've pulled out your ass.
Developers are spawned from a template.
They can't be filthy casuals. EVER.
I know right? Its not like people have different tastes. Here in the real world if a Developer makes a game not geared towards me, then he is doing it for that filthy filthy money and not because he wants to. The evil money forces his fingers to do unspeakable deeds like code a theme park.
Must be awesome to live in Utopia, where everyone does what they love and money is useless. But if you could join us back here in the real world for like 5 minutes and realize most of these developers work for studios who are out to make money, that would be super...
From "developers". Oh my that does sound important. Developers a whole group of people that think alike. Developers not individuals but a hive mind. Man you sure are right, you've got the facts to back up all the shit you've pulled out your ass.
Developers are spawned from a template.
They can't be filthy casuals. EVER.
I know right? Its not like people have different tastes. Here in the real world if a Developer makes a game not geared towards me, then he is doing it for that filthy filthy money and not because he wants to. The evil money forces his fingers to do unspeakable deeds like code a theme park.
Must be awesome to live in Utopia, where everyone does what they love and money is useless. But if you could join us back here in the real world for like 5 minutes and realize most of these developers work for studios who are out to make money, that would be super...
I like how you get nothing. Everything is about money. Everyone works to get money. That does not mean there is no passion involved. Working for money does not negate working on something you are passionate about.
I am a Front-end dev, I am a Front-end dev for the money. I enjoy what I do. Well look at that.
The poster I was answering to makes it seem like money is bad, doing something for money is bad. People who make Theme Parks, do so for the money and not because that is the game they want to make. He can't get over his subjective view of gaming and suggests that things that fall outside of his subjective view of gaming are lesser.
Originally posted by Ganksinatra Originally posted by Rzep Originally posted by Azaron_Nightblade Originally posted by RzepFrom "developers". Oh my that does sound important. Developers a whole group of people that think alike. Developers not individuals but a hive mind. Man you sure are right, you've got the facts to back up all the shit you've pulled out your ass.
Developers are spawned from a template.
They can't be filthy casuals. EVER.
I know right? Its not like people have different tastes. Here in the real world if a Developer makes a game not geared towards me, then he is doing it for that filthy filthy money and not because he wants to. The evil money forces his fingers to do unspeakable deeds like code a theme park.
Must be awesome to live in Utopia, where everyone does what they love and money is useless. But if you could join us back here in the real world for like 5 minutes and realize most of these developers work for studios who are out to make money, that would be super...
I like how you get nothing. Everything is about money. Everyone works to get money. That does not mean there is no passion involved. Working for money does not negate working on something you are passionate about.
I am a Front-end dev, I am a Front-end dev for the money. I enjoy what I do. Well look at that.
The poster I was answering to makes it seem like money is bad, doing something for money is bad. People who make Theme Parks, do so for the money and not because that is the game they want to make. He can't get over his subjective view of gaming and suggests that things that fall outside of his subjective view of gaming are lesser.
For claiming to know that everything is about money, you sure are naive. The point is, I could really love selling rocks to blind people and tell them it's gold. BUT, if they won't buy it, my passion means exactly jack shit. That's the part you seem unable or unwilling to grasp. These studios want to make money. If they think making a Barbie game is going to make the most money, your passion for sandbox mmos are going to be completely unimportant. Your insistence that the drive to make games revolves solidly around passion is idiotic at best. And again, to get back on track and on topic, if sandbox MMOs were even a fraction as popular as you claim, they would make it. Because that is what companies do. They endeavour to make profits. Your passion for how they do it is about as important as which black dude the Kartrashians are ruining this week.
From "developers". Oh my that does sound important. Developers a whole group of people that think alike. Developers not individuals but a hive mind. Man you sure are right, you've got the facts to back up all the shit you've pulled out your ass.
Developers are spawned from a template.
They can't be filthy casuals. EVER.
I know right? Its not like people have different tastes. Here in the real world if a Developer makes a game not geared towards me, then he is doing it for that filthy filthy money and not because he wants to. The evil money forces his fingers to do unspeakable deeds like code a theme park.
Must be awesome to live in Utopia, where everyone does what they love and money is useless. But if you could join us back here in the real world for like 5 minutes and realize most of these developers work for studios who are out to make money, that would be super...
I like how you get nothing. Everything is about money. Everyone works to get money. That does not mean there is no passion involved. Working for money does not negate working on something you are passionate about.
I am a Front-end dev, I am a Front-end dev for the money. I enjoy what I do. Well look at that.
The poster I was answering to makes it seem like money is bad, doing something for money is bad. People who make Theme Parks, do so for the money and not because that is the game they want to make. He can't get over his subjective view of gaming and suggests that things that fall outside of his subjective view of gaming are lesser.
For claiming to know that everything is about money, you sure are naive. The point is, I could really love selling rocks to blind people and tell them it's gold. BUT, if they won't buy it, my passion means exactly jack shit. That's the part you seem unable or unwilling to grasp. These studios want to make money. If they think making a Barbie game is going to make the most money, your passion for sandbox mmos are going to be completely unimportant. Your insistence that the drive to make games revolves solidly around passion is idiotic at best. And again, to get back on track and on topic, if sandbox MMOs were even a fraction as popular as you claim, they would make it. Because that is what companies do. They endeavour to make profits. Your passion for how they do it is about as important as which black dude the Kartrashians are ruining this week.
Now I see what is going on. You have confused my posts with the guys who started this discussion. The person I was answering and whose outlook I was making fun of thinks that Sandboxes are a worthwhile endevour. I on the other hand see that there is barely an audience there, and the audience that is there is exceedingly picky. The sandbox players have many games to choose from in the genre yet pick none. They can't even decided among themselves (looking at the forums of sandbox games) what a good Sandbox game is or what features it should have.
I have stated that a studio would have to be either stupid or suicidal to take on a Sandbox mmo. The chance to make a sandbox that will satisfy and unify the scattered audience is almost non existant.
It's fairly well-known that forums are a vocal minority.
Beyond that I've witnessed several events where the forums of my own games say one thing, and the analytics (what players are actually doing) say another.
Which we can see a not-unclear glimmer of in how this forum has historically had a lot of sandbox lovers, and yet out in the real world WOW completely obliterated SWG.
The lack of sandbox releases (brought upon by the lack of sandbox sales) is a big part of why there's a larger than normal influx of sandbox posters.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
As a fellow member of the "tired as shit of WoW clone themepark garbage" club I also ask myself this question all the time. All my hopes are currently in Gloria Victis and CU, as well as hoping the westernization of Black Desert doesn't fuck up like ArchAge.
Haxus Council Member 21 year MMO veteran PvP Raid Leader Lover of The Witcher & CD Projekt Red
Archeage, though not entirely sandbox, flopped unfortunately.
Star citizen is still trolling.
Camelot unchained/crowfall still mia.
Is CU even a sandbox? I thought it was all about the RvR à la DAoC?
And this site only represents a tiny, tiny fraction of the entire MMO playerbase. Just because a few loud elements are clamoring for it doesn't mean that the demand is as great as they claim.
The reason you see so few sandboxes is because none of them ever hit it big. UO's probably the most successful of the bunch, but WoW pretty much blew it out of the water when it released.
Vanguard and SWG both died after struggling for years, and Archeage seems to be a moderate success (not exactly the kind of thing that gets investor itching to jump on the bandwagon).
Games like Darkfall and the like aren't even worth mentioning, as they all have tiny playerbases.
EVE's doing pretty well, but it's not huge either. And good luck trying to steal EVE's players for a new game, given what they've got invested in their current game.
SWG did not "struggle for years". It struggled after NGE. It was a wildly popular game prior to Smedley throwing his sabot into the gears, after which it might as well have been a crappy WoW clone. Many players decided that WoW was doing WoW better than SWG and jumped ship.
It struggled from the beginning. Many of the complaints from the start (beyond the bugs and gross imbalances) were that it wasn't Star Wars. It's was a Uncle Owen Simulator... That there was less adventure and more hairstyling than in any other game in existence.
Even at its height it had less than 250,000 subscribers. This is less than half of EQ had and a tiny fraction of what WoW showed the world was possible. 'Wildly successful' is hardly an accurate assessment of the Hairstyling, Chef cooking, Interior decorating adventures of Bland So Low.
Not Starwarsy enough, that sounds like just another of the soundbites that was released by a certain person, who also claimed that there was too much reading in the game, it most certainly wasn't a complaint by the players at the time, and as for struggling, the game had 250k players at its peak, which at the time was probably more than were playing EQ1, the problem was, they wanted WoW's playerbase, and it wasn't happening, but it wasn't struggling, nor is Eve Online struggling at only having 500k, or 350k - 400k. SWG didn't 'struggle' until SOE decided that they needed to have millions of players, instead of hundreds of thousands, but the arguments against the game were not that it wasn't Starwarsy enough, that was just a management level PR excuse to explain away why they were burning their existing playerbase in the hope of enticing in the WoW crowd, needless to say, it didn't work.
That soundbite was merly a echo from all the complaints we read on the official forums, it wasn't made up by one person. In fact anyone reading forums back then knew how many who left early felt about the game.
Those of us who wanted fixed who where actually enjoying the game where once again in the minority.
I spent most of my work day back then reading the official forums. I don't think I ever saw that in the I quit posts. I did see lack of content mentioned alot. I saw people complaining Jedi (OP, shouldn't be there, should be hidden, etc), and how the hologrind was stupid because everyone quit playing the game to hologrind. I then remember people leaving because the village didn't make sense in the timeline. People complained about the fight clubbing. X and Y exploits were reasons people left. I don't, however, remember anyone saying not star warsy enough until it became a talking point for the NGE.
LOL, the list on the front page doesn't even include one game that I would play. Not a single one of them. So if that is the future of MMOs... it's going to be even bleaker than you think.
Comments
Not Starwarsy enough, that sounds like just another of the soundbites that was released by a certain person, who also claimed that there was too much reading in the game, it most certainly wasn't a complaint by the players at the time, and as for struggling, the game had 250k players at its peak, which at the time was probably more than were playing EQ1, the problem was, they wanted WoW's playerbase, and it wasn't happening, but it wasn't struggling, nor is Eve Online struggling at only having 500k, or 350k - 400k. SWG didn't 'struggle' until SOE decided that they needed to have millions of players, instead of hundreds of thousands, but the arguments against the game were not that it wasn't Starwarsy enough, that was just a management level PR excuse to explain away why they were burning their existing playerbase in the hope of enticing in the WoW crowd, needless to say, it didn't work.
Here we go again. Trying to define something as subjective as fun which varies from person to person. Poor arguments as usual which gets us no where.
Sandbox, PvP, and Old School difficulty players seem to have the worst habit of insisting their community is large enough for a centric.game of their own. They are not, as proven time and time again.LOL!
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
Lack of demand. Its generally accepted that the mmorpg market is a fraction of the gaming market and in turn the sandbox market is a fraction of the mmorpg market. That's a small market to aim an expensive development with a large maintenance bill at.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
That soundbite was merly a echo from all the complaints we read on the official forums, it wasn't made up by one person. In fact anyone reading forums back then knew how many who left early felt about the game.
Those of us who wanted fixed who where actually enjoying the game where once again in the minority.
Sandbox, PvP, and Old School difficulty players seem to have the worst habit of insisting their community is large enough for a centric.game of their own. They are not, as proven time and time again.Interesting, and how is this proven?
Oh btw, this is just from 1 out of the hundreds of private servers:
Accounts: 138586
Characters: 83927
Noblesse: 6582
GM Online: 0
Banned: 199
Kills: 5918737
You're right, I see no people. Just like I see no people here either:
.....did you just quote private server stats to "prove" your garbage subgenre is popular enough to get its own game?Capitalism 101: if it was popular enough, there would already be a AAA sandbox game. Those that have tried, have failed. Hard.
"Sandbox is super popular. We could make one of those!"
"Nah. I don't really care for profit."
.......said no CEO ever
What? do you know what subjective even means? what is fun for you isn't fun for others and vice versa. Typical BS as usual.
My parents also taught me that its pointless to talk about something as subjective as FUN which differs from person to person. But please you may continue, as i am done here. No point arguing with people who think their idea of 'fun' is universal and should be applicable to everyone else. Or else they are all miserable.
You're pulling things out your ass. Stop it. You do not speak for developers and what they do and don't like making. The ego on you, holy shit.
And this site only represents a tiny, tiny fraction of the entire MMO playerbase.
Where did that come from?
seems...made up.
1) 3 million members is hardly "tiny tiny".
2) do you know who each of them represents?
It would be interesting to see the % of this 3million that don't play mmorpg's anymore.
To the OP: casuals took over, and developers changed to making games for money and not for something that is fun.
Here we go again. Trying to define something as subjective as fun which varies from person to person. Poor arguments as usual which gets us no where.
I speak the words that came directly from the developers. Not my fault you don't have any creative thinking skills on how it is possible to do a job you love over doing a job just for the money.
What? do you know what subjective even means? what is fun for you isn't fun for others and vice versa. Typical BS as usual.
Again, you missed the point. Did your parents never give you the speech about making sure you choose your career in something you love, and not something for the money, or you will be miserable?
My parents also taught me that its pointless to talk about something as subjective as FUN which differs from person to person. But please you may continue, as i am done here. No point arguing with people who think their idea of 'fun' is universal and should be applicable to everyone else. Or else they are all miserable.
You keep twisting what I said. It's clearly simple.
I am saying game developers work on these projects for the mass casuals strictly for the money, not because it is something they love doing. I don't know how much more simple I could have made this. Obviously you're parents never gave you this speech.
I understood just fine. Like I said, if it would make X% profit for the company, the game would exist. And since profit is more than likely tied to popularity, the transitive property would show thay the game type is not popular enough to warrant a game. But then again, you and I seem to understand rudimentary economics.From "developers". Oh my that does sound important. Developers a whole group of people that think alike. Developers not individuals but a hive mind. Man you sure are right, you've got the facts to back up all the shit you've pulled out your ass.
Developers are spawned from a template.
They can't be filthy casuals. EVER.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
I know right? Its not like people have different tastes. Here in the real world if a Developer makes a game not geared towards me, then he is doing it for that filthy filthy money and not because he wants to. The evil money forces his fingers to do unspeakable deeds like code a theme park.
Developers are spawned from a template.
They can't be filthy casuals. EVER.
I know right? Its not like people have different tastes. Here in the real world if a Developer makes a game not geared towards me, then he is doing it for that filthy filthy money and not because he wants to. The evil money forces his fingers to do unspeakable deeds like code a theme park.
Must be awesome to live in Utopia, where everyone does what they love and money is useless. But if you could join us back here in the real world for like 5 minutes and realize most of these developers work for studios who are out to make money, that would be super...I like how you get nothing. Everything is about money. Everyone works to get money. That does not mean there is no passion involved. Working for money does not negate working on something you are passionate about.
I am a Front-end dev, I am a Front-end dev for the money. I enjoy what I do. Well look at that.
The poster I was answering to makes it seem like money is bad, doing something for money is bad. People who make Theme Parks, do so for the money and not because that is the game they want to make. He can't get over his subjective view of gaming and suggests that things that fall outside of his subjective view of gaming are lesser.
Developers are spawned from a template.
They can't be filthy casuals. EVER.
I know right? Its not like people have different tastes. Here in the real world if a Developer makes a game not geared towards me, then he is doing it for that filthy filthy money and not because he wants to. The evil money forces his fingers to do unspeakable deeds like code a theme park.
Must be awesome to live in Utopia, where everyone does what they love and money is useless. But if you could join us back here in the real world for like 5 minutes and realize most of these developers work for studios who are out to make money, that would be super...I like how you get nothing. Everything is about money. Everyone works to get money. That does not mean there is no passion involved. Working for money does not negate working on something you are passionate about.
I am a Front-end dev, I am a Front-end dev for the money. I enjoy what I do. Well look at that.
The poster I was answering to makes it seem like money is bad, doing something for money is bad. People who make Theme Parks, do so for the money and not because that is the game they want to make. He can't get over his subjective view of gaming and suggests that things that fall outside of his subjective view of gaming are lesser.
For claiming to know that everything is about money, you sure are naive. The point is, I could really love selling rocks to blind people and tell them it's gold. BUT, if they won't buy it, my passion means exactly jack shit. That's the part you seem unable or unwilling to grasp. These studios want to make money. If they think making a Barbie game is going to make the most money, your passion for sandbox mmos are going to be completely unimportant. Your insistence that the drive to make games revolves solidly around passion is idiotic at best. And again, to get back on track and on topic, if sandbox MMOs were even a fraction as popular as you claim, they would make it. Because that is what companies do. They endeavour to make profits. Your passion for how they do it is about as important as which black dude the Kartrashians are ruining this week.Now I see what is going on. You have confused my posts with the guys who started this discussion. The person I was answering and whose outlook I was making fun of thinks that Sandboxes are a worthwhile endevour. I on the other hand see that there is barely an audience there, and the audience that is there is exceedingly picky. The sandbox players have many games to choose from in the genre yet pick none. They can't even decided among themselves (looking at the forums of sandbox games) what a good Sandbox game is or what features it should have.
I have stated that a studio would have to be either stupid or suicidal to take on a Sandbox mmo. The chance to make a sandbox that will satisfy and unify the scattered audience is almost non existant.
It's fairly well-known that forums are a vocal minority.
Beyond that I've witnessed several events where the forums of my own games say one thing, and the analytics (what players are actually doing) say another.
Which we can see a not-unclear glimmer of in how this forum has historically had a lot of sandbox lovers, and yet out in the real world WOW completely obliterated SWG.
The lack of sandbox releases (brought upon by the lack of sandbox sales) is a big part of why there's a larger than normal influx of sandbox posters.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
21 year MMO veteran
PvP Raid Leader
Lover of The Witcher & CD Projekt Red
I spent most of my work day back then reading the official forums. I don't think I ever saw that in the I quit posts. I did see lack of content mentioned alot. I saw people complaining Jedi (OP, shouldn't be there, should be hidden, etc), and how the hologrind was stupid because everyone quit playing the game to hologrind. I then remember people leaving because the village didn't make sense in the timeline. People complained about the fight clubbing. X and Y exploits were reasons people left. I don't, however, remember anyone saying not star warsy enough until it became a talking point for the NGE.
Players: We want sandbox mmos!
Developers: Sure! We need 3-5 years to develop some though.
2 years later:
Players: OMG! What happened to the sandbox mmos? MIA?!
Developers: *sigh*
You stay sassy!
LOL, the list on the front page doesn't even include one game that I would play. Not a single one of them. So if that is the future of MMOs... it's going to be even bleaker than you think.
Waiting on Black Desert and yes I know all about the changes it has gone through.