The reason sandbox MMO's are made on small budgets is that ever since WoW came out, the AAA companies wanted games that would pull WoW figures. So the SWG era was over for the money men. The second they realized that most players want their hand held and led from exclamation point to exclamation point and big neon signs to the next bit of content, then it was the death of big budget sandboxes in the west.
There are some AAA eastern sandboxes, but if you like the western feel with western looking characters rather than a game set in medieval times, but featuring glamasians with swords that are too hilariously gigantic for their waifish thin frames to lift, then you don't have many options.
True sandbox MMO's, not themebox MMO's, have a small niche crowd that enjoy them. Big companies never ever go for small fan bases. They want a large base and want to have mass appeal.
I agree that WoW like-games have the biggest audience. And the vast majority of them already play WoW, and don't need a new MMO.
New MMOs should target audiences that aren't currently satisfied by what the market has to offer. If you actually create a quality product then those are the kind of people who are going to embrace your game long term and not just go back to WoW a month after they get tired of it.
The reason sandbox MMO's are made on small budgets is that ever since WoW came out, the AAA companies wanted games that would pull WoW figures. So the SWG era was over for the money men. The second they realized that most players want their hand held and led from exclamation point to exclamation point and big neon signs to the next bit of content, then it was the death of big budget sandboxes in the west.
There are some AAA eastern sandboxes, but if you like the western feel with western looking characters rather than a game set in medieval times, but featuring glamasians with swords that are too hilariously gigantic for their waifish thin frames to lift, then you don't have many options.
True sandbox MMO's, not themebox MMO's, have a small niche crowd that enjoy them. Big companies never ever go for small fan bases. They want a large base and want to have mass appeal.
I agree that WoW like-games have the biggest audience. And the vast majority of them already play WoW, and don't need a new MMO.
New MMOs should target audiences that aren't currently satisfied by what the market has to offer. If you actually create a quality product then those are the kind of people who are going to embrace your game long term and not just go back to WoW a month after they get tired of it.
From a business perspective I agree. From a gamer perspective I think new MMO's and all games should come about regardless of the audience but for the sake of a new game with new rules.
MMO's have always been niche with very few exceptions. Nothing wrong with that. And if smaller companies can pull off even so much as releasing a product that should be praised as a hell of an accomplishment regardless of how well it sells. Brand establishment is brand establishment. Example: Darkfall/Darkfall Unholy Wars... Sure Adventurine may not have been the best of business practice but they pulled off establishing a brand that will survive no matter how niche. (I could write an essay on that subject.)
From a business perspective I agree. From a gamer perspective I think new MMO's and all games should come about regardless of the audience but for the sake of a new game with new rules.
MMO's have always been niche with very few exceptions. Nothing wrong with that. And if smaller companies can pull off even so much as releasing a product that should be praised as a hell of an accomplishment regardless of how well it sells. Brand establishment is brand establishment. Example: Darkfall/Darkfall Unholy Wars... Sure Adventurine may not have been the best of business practice but they pulled off establishing a brand that will survive no matter how niche. (I could write an essay on that subject.)
It doesn't really sound like you are disagreeing with me at all. Unless you are saying that games that are pretty much WoW but slightly different should be created for the sake of more market variety. I don't feel those games give the market any kind of authentic variety, and their budgets would be better spent on games that do.
From a business perspective I agree. From a gamer perspective I think new MMO's and all games should come about regardless of the audience but for the sake of a new game with new rules.
MMO's have always been niche with very few exceptions. Nothing wrong with that. And if smaller companies can pull off even so much as releasing a product that should be praised as a hell of an accomplishment regardless of how well it sells. Brand establishment is brand establishment. Example: Darkfall/Darkfall Unholy Wars... Sure Adventurine may not have been the best of business practice but they pulled off establishing a brand that will survive no matter how niche. (I could write an essay on that subject.)
It doesn't really sound like you are disagreeing with me at all. Unless you are saying that games that are pretty much WoW but slightly different should be created for the sake of more market variety. I don't feel those games give the market any kind of authentic variety, and their budgets would be better spent on games that do.
Not really disagreeing no. I'll admit I nitpicked directly at "New MMOs should target audiences that aren't currently satisfied by what the market has to offer." Stating that new MMO's and games should be worked on and released without regard to audiences.
Not necessarily World of Warcraft, but yeah, variety for the sake of variety.
Sandbox games, by default, the players usually make the content...at least most of it.
Now first, the only exception to this is EVE which has a TON of content and things to do.
But most sandbox MMORPGs, feel like they are made to be a sandbox because the developer is indie and lack funds of a more high budget game. The vast majority lack substantial amount of content, lack vast amounts of polish and while the players do their own thing. It feels like the developers pretend the MMO is vast and amazing, where the player can make their own content...as an excuse because they themselves can't make the content.
Look at WoW, its a very high budget MMORPG and has so much content its insane. Sure the players don't decide much what to do, they are given choices. But it took a lot of money to make WoW.
Likewise, a lot of sandbox MMOs are made with a vastly less budget, lacks substantial polish and the players are left with an empty boring game world. Most of them as I said, feel like they made it a sandbox just because they couldn't afford to put more content into the game.
Even EVE had this issue early on with lack of polish and content. But now today, it has TONS of content. It is the rare exception to a more high budget sandbox MMO that shows that a sandbox MMO CAN be good, and still have a lot of content and things to do. While its all up the player (as a sandbox usually is), the things the player can do is wide and vast.
However, outside of EVE. Any time I try a sandbox MMO, it feels like the developer just made it to skimp on actually developing features and content, and made it to make a quick easy dollar off players that like that type of MMO. Sure I can do my own thing, but why?
Where is all the content and things I can do, like I can in EVE? Mostly any time I try the vast majority of sandbox MMOs, I get left with a feeling of emptiness and a poor budget MMO, that they only chose as a sandbox because a lack of said budget. But didn't make an MMO as good as EVE is.
I know this is just trollbait, but still, it's a fun subject!
In a sandbox, the development is focused on creating systems. Developers create combat systems, classes, progression, crafting, housing, social, hobbies etc. The more systems that are in place, the more possibilities the player has to define their own playstyle. The developers then create the world in which to use those systems.
In a themepark, the development is focused on the content and then the systems are created to support that content. As 99% of the content is quests, it means the main systems focus is on combat and progression, all other systems tend to get the cold shoulder and as a result are usually crap. But, it doesn't matter if the other systems are crap, as long as the systems that support the content are ok.
I believe the main reason we don't see many sandboxes at all and why we've never seen a AAA sandbox is down to the design and sales process.
Creative types usually aren't that logical. It is easier for them to focus on the world, or the storylines or the characters - the IP in general. It is then easier to sell that vision to developers / publishers. You go into a meeting with a publisher armed with artwork for the world, the characters etc. You can provide them with a load of short stories. It is something real and tangible for the publishers to look at, judge and support.
Creating a decent sandbox requires a different mindset. You need a logical mind in order to design the systems and make them all work cohesively together. You are trying to create a self-sustaining ecosystem. That is incredibly difficult (which is why a lot of sandboxes fail) but also difficult to sell. You can still provide visuals for the world, but how do you convince a suit that things like horizontal progression, player-made cities, minimal loot drops etc are worth investing in? It's not as if there are many success stories to support your pitch and there has never been a AAA sandbox MMO.
So, I don't think budget really plays into it. A AAA sandbox MMO, should we ever get one, will cost just as much as a AAA themepark. You save money by not having to develop 1000 quests, but then you have to spend more money fully developing all your systems and ensuring they all work together cohesively.
The only reason we see indie sandboxes is because they can't get the funding for AAA sandboxes. But, as you've probably seen, an indie sandbox is usually lacking in several major ways. They aren't looking for quick cash grabs as you've suggested (there is no evidence to support your claim), they simply want to make the game they've envisioned and can't get the funding to do it right. The lack of funding means they have to cut back their scope, which means cutting back on systems and polish. The resulting game typically has one or two great elements (such as crafting in Wurm) and everything else is lacking. They retain the niche audience that loves the one or two great parts, but the average gamer quickly leaves.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
"Sandbox games, by default, the players usually make the content"
Thiat quote really raised some questions of what you consider a sandbox. Is that really a game? Without content, a game is really a very empty vehicle. Relying on people to fill the content in, is a exercise in frustration.
SWG was the best sandbox I have even played. It had a lot of content. Eve is good to, also with lots of content. Making a good sandbox is probably harder to design than the standard theme park as they are generally skill based and hence much harder to balance.
I think the reason so many of these independent MMO's try for a sandbox approach is to differentiate themselves from all the mainstream theme parks. It is very evident that that is much harder to do than they thought due to what is currently available from these independents.
A classic Indie developer sandbox game buzz are like this.
Be whoever you want. Build your own house or even a village with your guild and conquer other player villages and create a kingdom. Crafting and harvest. FFA full loot PVP. Explore a full rich world filled with monsters and animal you can slay or harvest ( It's an emty big world with mobs here and there) It's the player who creates the content with other players.
Does this sounds familiar?
In reality it all ends up in houses that looks like penises and players killing one another left and right.
There is no content whatsoever It's all emty words that sounds great on paper but never works.
So yes there is a reason why there are popping up so much "sandbox" games nowdays, they ARE easy to make.
You can still provide visuals for the world, but how do you convince a suit that things like horizontal progression, player-made cities, minimal loot drops etc are worth investing in? It's not as if there are many success stories to support your pitch and there has never been a AAA sandbox MMO.
Investors couldn't care less what systems your game has, be they sandbox or themepark or if your game is about purple monkeys rubbing butter on their nipples. They want to know demographics, market segment size, monetization model, development timelines, expected ROI, and when they will recoup their initial investment and starting realizing gains.
The game itself can be anything, investors just want to know why they should give their money. This is where kickstarter/crowdfunding comes in as it goes directly to the players who care more about what the game is instead of all the things listed earlier. Unfortunately, it's easy to pitch a dream to someone who wants to hear about that dream when they either don't care or have no clue about what it takes to make that dream come true.
So if you're trying to pitch a massive AAA sandbox and you're faced with the questions, "What's the biggest game in that market? How much does it bring in? What's the expectation of attracting players beyond that?" You have to point to EVE with it's 250k-400k subscribers and make your case that your game will be totally different and be appealing to all sorts of people for reasons x,y, and z. Then the investor has to review your plan and your market research and decide if you're full of it, or if you have a chance and what that chance is.
I'd argue it's easier to get a sandbox'ish game on console as you can point to GTA, Skyrim, maybe Witcher 3 as huge successes in that area with a large market that is eager for more of these types of games. The same cannot be said of the PC based MMORPG market.
No one cares if SWG was your favorite game and had 300k subscribers in 2003. The only place a game like that might get funded is on a kickstarter type site. No one with money is going to look at that and think it's a good idea.
A classic Indie developer sandbox game buzz are like this.
Be whoever you want. Build your own house or even a village with your guild and conquer other player villages and create a kingdom. Crafting and harvest. FFA full loot PVP. Explore a full rich world filled with monsters and animal you can slay or harvest ( It's an emty big world with mobs here and there) It's the player who creates the content with other players.
Does this sounds familiar?
In reality it all ends up in houses that looks like penises and players killing one another left and right.
There is no content whatsoever It's all emty words that sounds great on paper but never works.
So yes there is a reason why there are popping up so much "sandbox" games nowdays, they ARE easy to make.
Thats because those arent Sandboxes, they are just fruitless attempts at a Sandbox or money grab that never work .. A True Sandbox like UO or Eve has plenty of content , matter a fact UO has more activities for a player to participate in , "If They Choose" than any other MMORPG out ..... ANd they pop up "nowadays" but fail they are very few good sandboxes that have reached retail ... All these so-called Sandboxes that pop-up are more akin to multi player survival money grabs for those that will be parted with there credit card info easily ..
Dont be fooled by imitations
Theres Eve,UO, Ryzom , WURM up and running true sandboxes , im having a hard time thinking of any other ...
"Sandbox games, by default, the players usually make the content"
Thiat quote really raised some questions of what you consider a sandbox. Is that really a game? Without content, a game is really a very empty vehicle. Relying on people to fill the content in, is a exercise in frustration.
Sandbox content is rarely ever game content. It's toys, tools for playing a game, simulation controls... but rarely the game content itself.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Maybe we just need to dump the term sandbox? No one can define it and there arent hardly any good so called sandboxes out there so lets just drop the term and call them RPGs or whatever other category they fall into.
The term Sandbox means different thinks to different people and developers. I consider Asheron's Call a sandbox and I also believe it is the greatest MMO ever made and made with a smallish budget. Some would consider GTA V a big sandbox and it cost hundred's of millions to develop. No two people can seem to agree on what a Sandbox is so the whole conversation is null.
The reason I would not consider GTA series a sandbox is as follows
1. 50% or more of the map is off limits without cheats or following a specific 'quest line' 2. Some of the content even within the open area is closed until one complete specific quest lines 3. Its tricky and in my mind silly process to avoid doing missions. 4. The missions themselves do not have many variables on how to complete it
The idea should be 'if I dont want to do missions my game experience will not be restricted outside of the story.'
You are not restricted. You can just wander off on your own and do what ever you want. GTA Online is that way as well.
actually you cant and I know this because I tried.
Start the game it instantly puts you into a mission, if you fail the mission anyway by trying to leave it restarts the mission. You have to do this I think three times before you can get out of the mission.
That is NOT 'you are not restricted' that is horseshit.
more over, at least GTA4, GTA3 at least 1/2 of the map was complely blocked off until you finished the missions which is about as anti-sandbox as it gets.
I dont know about GTA5 because it bored me and ticked me off and I never went to find out
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Maybe we just need to dump the term sandbox? No one can define it and there arent hardly any good so called sandboxes out there so lets just drop the term and call them RPGs or whatever other category they fall into.
not sure it really matters anyway, the gaming industry will just use whatever popular term gamers are using and call their game that even if it doesnt apply to the parameters
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Sandbox games, by default, the players usually make the content...at least most of it.
Now first, the only exception to this is EVE which has a TON of content and things to do.
But most sandbox MMORPGs, feel like they are made to be a sandbox because the developer is indie and lack funds of a more high budget game. The vast majority lack substantial amount of content, lack vast amounts of polish and while the players do their own thing. It feels like the developers pretend the MMO is vast and amazing, where the player can make their own content...as an excuse because they themselves can't make the content.
Look at WoW, its a very high budget MMORPG and has so much content its insane. Sure the players don't decide much what to do, they are given choices. But it took a lot of money to make WoW.
Likewise, a lot of sandbox MMOs are made with a vastly less budget, lacks substantial polish and the players are left with an empty boring game world. Most of them as I said, feel like they made it a sandbox just because they couldn't afford to put more content into the game.
Even EVE had this issue early on with lack of polish and content. But now today, it has TONS of content. It is the rare exception to a more high budget sandbox MMO that shows that a sandbox MMO CAN be good, and still have a lot of content and things to do. While its all up the player (as a sandbox usually is), the things the player can do is wide and vast.
However, outside of EVE. Any time I try a sandbox MMO, it feels like the developer just made it to skimp on actually developing features and content, and made it to make a quick easy dollar off players that like that type of MMO. Sure I can do my own thing, but why?
Where is all the content and things I can do, like I can in EVE? Mostly any time I try the vast majority of sandbox MMOs, I get left with a feeling of emptiness and a poor budget MMO, that they only chose as a sandbox because a lack of said budget. But didn't make an MMO as good as EVE is.
Sandbox games, by default, the players usually make the content...at least most of it.
Now first, the only exception to this is EVE which has a TON of content and things to do.
But most sandbox MMORPGs, feel like they are made to be a sandbox because the developer is indie and lack funds of a more high budget game. The vast majority lack substantial amount of content, lack vast amounts of polish and while the players do their own thing. It feels like the developers pretend the MMO is vast and amazing, where the player can make their own content...as an excuse because they themselves can't make the content.
Look at WoW, its a very high budget MMORPG and has so much content its insane. Sure the players don't decide much what to do, they are given choices. But it took a lot of money to make WoW.
Likewise, a lot of sandbox MMOs are made with a vastly less budget, lacks substantial polish and the players are left with an empty boring game world. Most of them as I said, feel like they made it a sandbox just because they couldn't afford to put more content into the game.
Even EVE had this issue early on with lack of polish and content. But now today, it has TONS of content. It is the rare exception to a more high budget sandbox MMO that shows that a sandbox MMO CAN be good, and still have a lot of content and things to do. While its all up the player (as a sandbox usually is), the things the player can do is wide and vast.
However, outside of EVE. Any time I try a sandbox MMO, it feels like the developer just made it to skimp on actually developing features and content, and made it to make a quick easy dollar off players that like that type of MMO. Sure I can do my own thing, but why?
Where is all the content and things I can do, like I can in EVE? Mostly any time I try the vast majority of sandbox MMOs, I get left with a feeling of emptiness and a poor budget MMO, that they only chose as a sandbox because a lack of said budget. But didn't make an MMO as good as EVE is.
First off EVE is not the only exception, ever heard of Age Of Wulin.
Secondly I don't consider EVE to be a true sandbox mmo just like I don't think Age Of Wulin is which is very similar to EVE in all but setting.
Thirdly have you ever heard of Wurm Online which makes games like EVE look like glorified theme park mmo's
To my mind, Sandboxes are more difficult than theme parks. In theme parks, content is usually layed out in an organized manner. 'characters go to a, then b, then c. ok lets program that.' you know this area is 1-10, the next 11 - 20... there needs be a healing station here to bridge these two enounters, etc
However, with a sandbox, you don't have that nice structure. You have to put enough systems in place (sand) and in such a way that players have things to do, while not forcing them along a nice path. Since you don't know ahead of time, it takes a lot of planning to give players the ability to 'not follow a plan.'
To my mind, Sandboxes are more difficult than theme parks. In theme parks, content is usually layed out in an organized manner. 'characters go to a, then b, then c. ok lets program that.' you know this area is 1-10, the next 11 - 20... there needs be a healing station here to bridge these two enounters, etc
However, with a sandbox, you don't have that nice structure. You have to put enough systems in place (sand) and in such a way that players have things to do, while not forcing them along a nice path. Since you don't know ahead of time, it takes a lot of planning to give players the ability to 'not follow a plan.'
Nice summing up and I agree.
If there is payer made content, then it usually contradicts with other player made content, so the game is a mish-mash of junk.
Since sandbox games have a HUGE learning curve, most players will not play them or try and leave. They only attract a specific kind of gamer, hence why only Indie developers make them now. Companies want to appeal the widest range of players (for profit generation), not fewest players possible.
To my mind, Sandboxes are more difficult than theme parks. In theme parks, content is usually layed out in an organized manner. 'characters go to a, then b, then c. ok lets program that.' you know this area is 1-10, the next 11 - 20... there needs be a healing station here to bridge these two enounters, etc
However, with a sandbox, you don't have that nice structure. You have to put enough systems in place (sand) and in such a way that players have things to do, while not forcing them along a nice path. Since you don't know ahead of time, it takes a lot of planning to give players the ability to 'not follow a plan.'
Nice summing up and I agree.
If there is payer made content, then it usually contradicts with other player made content, so the game is a mish-mash of junk.
Since sandbox games have a HUGE learning curve, most players will not play them or try and leave. They only attract a specific kind of gamer, hence why only Indie developers make them now. Companies want to appeal the widest range of players (for profit generation), not fewest players possible.
There are a lot of myths about building sandbox games that Wurm online has prooven is false.
The building problem is one of them...
the solution is called a paremeter around a property in which nothing can be built, also we live in a world in which is a building sandbox guys
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
To my mind, Sandboxes are more difficult than theme parks. In theme parks, content is usually layed out in an organized manner. 'characters go to a, then b, then c. ok lets program that.' you know this area is 1-10, the next 11 - 20... there needs be a healing station here to bridge these two enounters, etc
However, with a sandbox, you don't have that nice structure. You have to put enough systems in place (sand) and in such a way that players have things to do, while not forcing them along a nice path. Since you don't know ahead of time, it takes a lot of planning to give players the ability to 'not follow a plan.'
Nice summing up and I agree.
If there is payer made content, then it usually contradicts with other player made content, so the game is a mish-mash of junk.
Since sandbox games have a HUGE learning curve, most players will not play them or try and leave. They only attract a specific kind of gamer, hence why only Indie developers make them now. Companies want to appeal the widest range of players (for profit generation), not fewest players possible.
There are a lot of myths about building sandbox games that Wurm online has prooven is false.
The building problem is one of them...
the solution is called a paremeter around a property in which nothing can be built, also we live in a world in which is a building sandbox guys
There are a lot of solutions known and unknown but some of that is due to the fact that sandbox never progressed with any kind of funding. So many developer wannabes just slap maps, let players build crap and kill each other.
Community tools are needed to avoid what happened in SWG in urban blight. Urban planning for towns and guards to provide protection. For example starter towns should have a buildings space inside and on the outskirts of them that's preplanned to prevent the outskirts of town being filled with houses after a small build free zone. Player towns should also have preplanned plots, roads and walls and the like so you can have a organized looking town not just a shanty town of houses clumped.
Advanced radiant questing that arise on its own based on developer starting points and player actions. Developer content still should exist in small themeparks but they probably shouldn't be perm.
The term Sandbox means different thinks to different people and developers. I consider Asheron's Call a sandbox and I also believe it is the greatest MMO ever made and made with a smallish budget. Some would consider GTA V a big sandbox and it cost hundred's of millions to develop. No two people can seem to agree on what a Sandbox is so the whole conversation is null.
The reason I would not consider GTA series a sandbox is as follows
1. 50% or more of the map is off limits without cheats or following a specific 'quest line' 2. Some of the content even within the open area is closed until one complete specific quest lines 3. Its tricky and in my mind silly process to avoid doing missions. 4. The missions themselves do not have many variables on how to complete it
The idea should be 'if I dont want to do missions my game experience will not be restricted outside of the story.'
You are not restricted. You can just wander off on your own and do what ever you want. GTA Online is that way as well.
actually you cant and I know this because I tried.
Start the game it instantly puts you into a mission, if you fail the mission anyway by trying to leave it restarts the mission. You have to do this I think three times before you can get out of the mission.
That is NOT 'you are not restricted' that is horseshit.
more over, at least GTA4, GTA3 at least 1/2 of the map was complely blocked off until you finished the missions which is about as anti-sandbox as it gets.
I dont know about GTA5 because it bored me and ticked me off and I never went to find out
I mentioned GTA V not 4 or 3. You said the series I said GTA V GTA V lets you go do what you want. Or just hope online and do whatever you want. So no it is not horsesh@t nice try though. kudos for effort!
ok so lets set the record specifically then.
1. I said GTA series and what I said about GTA series on two counts is accurate all for 1 of the 5 games for 1 point and 100% accurate for the other point. 2. the two points where 1. maps locked 2. you have to do missions. number 2 is true for ALL 5 of the games. item 1 is only not accurate for one of the games.
sorry but item 2.2 makes it not a sandbox as far as I am concerned peroid.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
These are the systems SHARED by themepark and sandbox games PvE and PvP combat, looting, harvesting, crafting, and trading. What don't they share lore, quest, voice overs, cutscenes and scripted content. Both the shared and unshared content take time and money, a lot of time and money. Neither is cheap or easy. Some games may save money or just don't have the skill or talent to develop Art both 2D & 3D, Animations, Special Effects, Music, Voice Overs, or Story. But I don't think that is what people are finding missing in modern and indie sandboxes.
BTW the cost of running a server farm / data center is expensive, leasing a cloud is more expensive.
There are four types of MMO gamers Killers, Achievers, Explorers, and Socializers. Achievers are typically happy with crafting systems, achievements, quests, and titles these are the brainy scholarly types. Explorers want to explore a vast and beautiful world. Socializers want to mingle and talk, they want to be around people. Notice how these people are pretty much satisfied with all the systems provided by both themepark and sandbox?
Then there are Killers.
Killers need people to kill.
So clearly the problem with modern and indie sandboxes.
No one to Kill!
This is the only topic relevant to discussion of MMO sandboxes.
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Comments
New MMOs should target audiences that aren't currently satisfied by what the market has to offer. If you actually create a quality product then those are the kind of people who are going to embrace your game long term and not just go back to WoW a month after they get tired of it.
MMO's have always been niche with very few exceptions. Nothing wrong with that. And if smaller companies can pull off even so much as releasing a product that should be praised as a hell of an accomplishment regardless of how well it sells. Brand establishment is brand establishment. Example: Darkfall/Darkfall Unholy Wars... Sure Adventurine may not have been the best of business practice but they pulled off establishing a brand that will survive no matter how niche. (I could write an essay on that subject.)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Not necessarily World of Warcraft, but yeah, variety for the sake of variety.
In a sandbox, the development is focused on creating systems. Developers create combat systems, classes, progression, crafting, housing, social, hobbies etc. The more systems that are in place, the more possibilities the player has to define their own playstyle. The developers then create the world in which to use those systems.
In a themepark, the development is focused on the content and then the systems are created to support that content. As 99% of the content is quests, it means the main systems focus is on combat and progression, all other systems tend to get the cold shoulder and as a result are usually crap. But, it doesn't matter if the other systems are crap, as long as the systems that support the content are ok.
I believe the main reason we don't see many sandboxes at all and why we've never seen a AAA sandbox is down to the design and sales process.
Creative types usually aren't that logical. It is easier for them to focus on the world, or the storylines or the characters - the IP in general. It is then easier to sell that vision to developers / publishers. You go into a meeting with a publisher armed with artwork for the world, the characters etc. You can provide them with a load of short stories. It is something real and tangible for the publishers to look at, judge and support.
Creating a decent sandbox requires a different mindset. You need a logical mind in order to design the systems and make them all work cohesively together. You are trying to create a self-sustaining ecosystem. That is incredibly difficult (which is why a lot of sandboxes fail) but also difficult to sell. You can still provide visuals for the world, but how do you convince a suit that things like horizontal progression, player-made cities, minimal loot drops etc are worth investing in? It's not as if there are many success stories to support your pitch and there has never been a AAA sandbox MMO.
So, I don't think budget really plays into it. A AAA sandbox MMO, should we ever get one, will cost just as much as a AAA themepark. You save money by not having to develop 1000 quests, but then you have to spend more money fully developing all your systems and ensuring they all work together cohesively.
The only reason we see indie sandboxes is because they can't get the funding for AAA sandboxes. But, as you've probably seen, an indie sandbox is usually lacking in several major ways. They aren't looking for quick cash grabs as you've suggested (there is no evidence to support your claim), they simply want to make the game they've envisioned and can't get the funding to do it right. The lack of funding means they have to cut back their scope, which means cutting back on systems and polish. The resulting game typically has one or two great elements (such as crafting in Wurm) and everything else is lacking. They retain the niche audience that loves the one or two great parts, but the average gamer quickly leaves.
Thiat quote really raised some questions of what you consider a sandbox. Is that really a game? Without content, a game is really a very empty vehicle. Relying on people to fill the content in, is a exercise in frustration.
SWG was the best sandbox I have even played. It had a lot of content. Eve is good to, also with lots of content. Making a good sandbox is probably harder to design than the standard theme park as they are generally skill based and hence much harder to balance.
I think the reason so many of these independent MMO's try for a sandbox approach is to differentiate themselves from all the mainstream theme parks. It is very evident that that is much harder to do than they thought due to what is currently available from these independents.
A classic Indie developer sandbox game buzz are like this.
Be whoever you want.
Build your own house or even a village with your guild and conquer other player villages and create a kingdom.
Crafting and harvest.
FFA full loot PVP.
Explore a full rich world filled with monsters and animal you can slay or harvest ( It's an emty big world with mobs here and there)
It's the player who creates the content with other players.
Does this sounds familiar?
In reality it all ends up in houses that looks like penises and players killing one another left and right.
There is no content whatsoever It's all emty words that sounds great on paper but never works.
So yes there is a reason why there are popping up so much "sandbox" games nowdays, they ARE easy to make.
The game itself can be anything, investors just want to know why they should give their money. This is where kickstarter/crowdfunding comes in as it goes directly to the players who care more about what the game is instead of all the things listed earlier. Unfortunately, it's easy to pitch a dream to someone who wants to hear about that dream when they either don't care or have no clue about what it takes to make that dream come true.
So if you're trying to pitch a massive AAA sandbox and you're faced with the questions, "What's the biggest game in that market? How much does it bring in? What's the expectation of attracting players beyond that?" You have to point to EVE with it's 250k-400k subscribers and make your case that your game will be totally different and be appealing to all sorts of people for reasons x,y, and z. Then the investor has to review your plan and your market research and decide if you're full of it, or if you have a chance and what that chance is.
I'd argue it's easier to get a sandbox'ish game on console as you can point to GTA, Skyrim, maybe Witcher 3 as huge successes in that area with a large market that is eager for more of these types of games. The same cannot be said of the PC based MMORPG market.
No one cares if SWG was your favorite game and had 300k subscribers in 2003. The only place a game like that might get funded is on a kickstarter type site. No one with money is going to look at that and think it's a good idea.
Dont be fooled by imitations
Theres Eve,UO, Ryzom , WURM up and running true sandboxes , im having a hard time thinking of any other ...
Sandbox content is rarely ever game content. It's toys, tools for playing a game, simulation controls... but rarely the game content itself.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Start the game it instantly puts you into a mission, if you fail the mission anyway by trying to leave it restarts the mission. You have to do this I think three times before you can get out of the mission.
That is NOT 'you are not restricted' that is horseshit.
more over, at least GTA4, GTA3 at least 1/2 of the map was complely blocked off until you finished the missions which is about as anti-sandbox as it gets.
I dont know about GTA5 because it bored me and ticked me off and I never went to find out
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
First off EVE is not the only exception, ever heard of Age Of Wulin.
Secondly I don't consider EVE to be a true sandbox mmo just like I don't think Age Of Wulin is which is very similar to EVE in all but setting.
Thirdly have you ever heard of Wurm Online which makes games like EVE look like glorified theme park mmo's
Oh and I don't agree with you.
However, with a sandbox, you don't have that nice structure. You have to put enough systems in place (sand) and in such a way that players have things to do, while not forcing them along a nice path. Since you don't know ahead of time, it takes a lot of planning to give players the ability to 'not follow a plan.'
I self identify as a monkey.
Nice summing up and I agree.
If there is payer made content, then it usually contradicts with other player made content, so the game is a mish-mash of junk.
Since sandbox games have a HUGE learning curve, most players will not play them or try and leave. They only attract a specific kind of gamer, hence why only Indie developers make them now. Companies want to appeal the widest range of players (for profit generation), not fewest players possible.
The building problem is one of them...
the solution is called a paremeter around a property in which nothing can be built, also we live in a world in which is a building sandbox guys
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Community tools are needed to avoid what happened in SWG in urban blight. Urban planning for towns and guards to provide protection. For example starter towns should have a buildings space inside and on the outskirts of them that's preplanned to prevent the outskirts of town being filled with houses after a small build free zone. Player towns should also have preplanned plots, roads and walls and the like so you can have a organized looking town not just a shanty town of houses clumped.
Advanced radiant questing that arise on its own based on developer starting points and player actions. Developer content still should exist in small themeparks but they probably shouldn't be perm.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
1. I said GTA series and what I said about GTA series on two counts is accurate all for 1 of the 5 games for 1 point and 100% accurate for the other point.
2. the two points where 1. maps locked 2. you have to do missions. number 2 is true for ALL 5 of the games. item 1 is only not accurate for one of the games.
sorry but item 2.2 makes it not a sandbox as far as I am concerned peroid.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
BTW the cost of running a server farm / data center is expensive, leasing a cloud is more expensive.
There are four types of MMO gamers Killers, Achievers, Explorers, and Socializers. Achievers are typically happy with crafting systems, achievements, quests, and titles these are the brainy scholarly types. Explorers want to explore a vast and beautiful world. Socializers want to mingle and talk, they want to be around people. Notice how these people are pretty much satisfied with all the systems provided by both themepark and sandbox?
Then there are Killers.
Killers need people to kill.
So clearly the problem with modern and indie sandboxes.
No one to Kill!
This is the only topic relevant to discussion of MMO sandboxes.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다