Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Desired: A MMO that doesnt cave after alpha to old computers (crappy graphics)
Archaegeo
Member UncommonPosts: 233
Id love to see a developer with their own money state simply: These are our required specs, yes, they are high, no, we aren't going to lower them for your 4 year old computer.
Need bill gates or someone like that to fund the MMO he wants that requires current hardware to play, looks incredible, and gets 45 fps max on the best hardware 
We see it over an over, great trailers of beautiful games, from in game engine real gameplay, only to end up looking like crap cause once they get to public they have to dumb everything down effects and graphics wise to some lowest common denominator.
Or even if they are able to leave a high end, if it has pvp, then everyone lowers it for higher fps and getting rid of shadows/grass/etc.
I know, kids cant ask mommy and daddy for a new computer every year.
Explorer 73% Achiever 53% Socializer 53% Killer 20%
Comments
What world do you live in where Mommy and Daddy get free high-end gaming rigs, or where there's any history of such an MMO being economically viable to create?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Had that. Was called Vanguard.
Go look it up and see how it does currently.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
Actually, in the early days of MMORPG's, i remember games like DAOC requiring specific graphic cards, there were like 12 they supported, and all reasonably expensive for their day. I recall having to upgrade my old computer to the latest processors, boosting ram with every new game release.
Vanguard in fact was the MMORPG that broke the trend, they said they misjudged the level of tech adoption that their customers would have at launch, hence some of the issues with performance.
MMO's did use to be coded for a higher end box, and it really was WOW that started the trend to making games that ran on the lowest common denominator.
More profitable, yes, better for gamers, or at least those who can afford it, no.
Remember the old motto, the computer you really want to buy costs $5000. (Machrone's law) Still true today.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
^^^^^^^^
Yep Vanguard did exactly what you asked OP. Great success!
DAoC could run on most video cards at the time, as it still did a lot of the work through the CPU, which is why the sys reqs for it at the time were based on the type of processor you had.
Sys Reqs at release:
Processor: Pentium II: PII 450Mhz
Processor: Pentium III/IV
Recommended Sys Reqs:
To put that in perspective, most video cards released in late 1999 (DAoC came out in 2001) were 16M or 32M cards. DAoC did have a problem with some of the early Voodoos, but I think V3 and V5 both worked with the game. I remember my Wife getting a patch for her Voodoo2 drivers so that DAoC would display decals and some other textures properly.
And, really... do you really want to use Vanguard as an example?
It definitely is an example, of course... an example of why you shouldn't go that route.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Because failed because the graphics were kickass at release and only could be played on high end rigs! If it were WoW cartoony it would have been a major success wouldn't it? You two know oh so much about why it failed and it had nothing at all to do with the great Brad McFail being comoletely incompetent now did it?
I guess the only way to ensure a game is successful is to make it look like a cartoon. Oh wait, how has that done for almost every MMO that has taken that route except for WoW? Oh yeah, guess we won't mention those games now shall we? But I guess your arguments would be that they had flaws in mechanics and graphics had nothing to do with those failures...
Yeah, ESO runs and looks beautiful on my gaming rig (gtx670 and core i5), so I figured I could run it on my laptop and not even close. I figured I could because I can run csgo on medium settings.
But yeah, ESO on its lowest settings basically looks like runescape, so it definitely does have a good range.
Last I checked, Black Desert has an i5 min requi so I guess we will see.
Especially if it's a game company that makes MMOs, because if the target customer wants the latest graphics then the studio has to either plan for regular texture or engine overhauls every 2-3 years or prepare to lose those players to the next game that will push the limits of their rig.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I enjoyed the great graphics of Vanguard - especially the realistic viewing distances. But ultimately I dont care about graphics. Its a nice addition, but not a priority. Priority is quality of gameplay and storytelling.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Can you give examples?
Other than maybe some drama with single player games showing high end graphics only to change them for launch I can't recall any mmo's that did this.
To the point, I do remember that EQ required a video card and this was the first time, to my knowledge, any company having to do this.
I don't see why a company can't say "these are the high end graphics and if you want them then these are the specs" but I also think they would be stupid if they didn't offer low end graphics options.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
So far I've had a Core i7 and a GTX 680 for what seems like 4+ years at least now. It still seems to play most games at high or max settings. I don't mind upgrading my video card, but I still believe there are far more important things to concentrate on then graphics right now. The games already look pretty good. Most of it is subjective based on the artist. For instance I don't like a lot of the modern day Anime art that is used in games. I prefer the older medieval style art like Skyrim uses or Everquest (which looks a bit like older fantasy drawings you see instead of stuff like the Peter Jackson movies).
You can dismiss their example if you like but in general I think accessibility plays a big factor in a games acceptance by the market. it's not a guarantee of success but I think you would hard pressed to show examples of wildly successful games that were not accessible to their audiences.
For me no clearer example of this can been shown than comparing EQ2 and WoW at launch. They both launched within weeks of each other and one was a polished accessible game that could run on most computers the other wasn't and look at which one took off while the other struggled. I highly doubt that system requirements was the only reason EQ2 didn't take off like WoW but it didn't help either.
Most people just won't or can't upgrade their computers for a game no matter how much they want to play it. So if your goal is to sell copies of you game or even just get people playing it for a shot at your cash shop you need to make it so that game can be played by most people. I'm sure there is a niche market for high end games but it's just that niche and your still competing against every game out their that has lower requirements than yours so I highly doubt it's a very comfortable place to be. And in the F2P market niche is death as you need as many people as possible in the game to maximize the number of people spending money in the cash shop.
Well considering it was pretty much the only complaint at launch. How could it have been the only complaint? Easy. You can't complain about anything else in the game if you can't play it. Vanguard failed in the long term due to various reasons, but it died at launch because just about no one could play it.
We're not making arguments. We're both simply restating what actually occurred. If you weren't around for Vanguard's launch, that's fine, but you clearly have no idea what happened.
That about sums it up.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Explorer 73% Achiever 53% Socializer 53% Killer 20%
So if the problem is that the game will predictably lose massive amounts of money, and it's an easily fixable problem simply by offering lower graphical settings, your solution is for the game to be made by someone who has tons of money and doesn't mind squandering it on a project that will predictably lose massive amounts of money? I'd like to submit that most companies that are rich didn't get that way by doing things that they knew would be huge financial losers.