@ohioastro Very well put. I was going to reply but you pretty much said exactly what was in my head- but you were much more well spoken than I would've been :P
Eve Online is doing pretty damn good. Companies that wish to have sandbox need to pay attention.
Not compared to MOBAs, instanced pvp games like WoT, WoW, TOR, and so on .... sure, it may be the most successful sandbox ... but if that is the best sandbox can do, does any dev really want to bother?
One of the buzzwords for sandbox games is freedom. But most people nowadys are mixing up freedom with anarchy. This does not work IRL and it doesn´t work in games too.
One of the buzzwords for sandbox games is freedom. But most people nowadys are mixing up freedom with anarchy. This does not work IRL and it doesn´t work in games too.
Very good point. Part of the issue is that there are various features / mechanics which can be implemented to prevent the anarchy, but then as soon as a dev talks about doing that everyone starts whining that it's not a sandbox because they can't just do whatever they want with absolutely no consequences. A sandbox does not mean there are no consequences for your actions, but somehow many people have come under the impression that consequences for your actions = lack of freedom. You're still free to do things, you just have to be willing to suffer the consequences if you are caught doing so. Just like IRL.
You're free to make the decision to go on a killing spree or became a thief, but there will be consequences if you are caught.
We have yet to see a big company make a modern AAA sandbox game. Not just a game with sandbox elements but a real sandbox game.
I think if a company did it right it would have a huge audience. But nobody is willing to take that risk.
Because "i think if a company did it right it would have a huge audience" is not a compelling business reason. Are you willing to bet your career, and your house on "i think" with little evidence?
It is not like companies are not taking risks. The first MOBA is a risk. World of Tank was a risk before it got big. Warframe was a risk. But they don't have to take risks that you like, right?
We have yet to see a big company make a modern AAA sandbox game. Not just a game with sandbox elements but a real sandbox game.
I think if a company did it right it would have a huge audience. But nobody is willing to take that risk.
Because "i think if a company did it right it would have a huge audience" is not a compelling business reason. Are you willing to bet your career, and your house on "i think" with little evidence?
It is not like companies are not taking risks. The first MOBA is a risk. World of Tank was a risk before it got big. Warframe was a risk. But they don't have to take risks that you like, right?
Kind of apples to oranges there. Sure, theyre both fruit (games), but theyre different types. Yes, creating the 1st MOBA was a risk, but that was creating a different type of game. When it comes to this particular type of game though, MMORPG, there are very few risks taken in games with pretty large budgets.
Probably the biggest "risk" taken in recent years was SWTORs heavy focus on a single-player game quality story. But when it comes to actual core mechanics and gameplay, there are too few willing to take risks.
Take your standard combat found in games like WoW for example. That type of combat worked for the earlier games in the genre, and so it kind of stuck, and everyone kept using it. Does it work pretty well? Sure. But can it be improved upon and made more interesting? Definitely. Unfortunately even when someone does try it a different way, because that game isn't a massive success usually nobody bothers to really take anything from it. It is just discarded as a bad game rather than devs analyzing it and saying "How can we remove what made it bad and use the good parts?"
Could you imagine if at some point it was decided by the industry that "Hey, Pong works. We should make every game play just like Pong, but call it something else and make the paddles and ball look a little different". That's pretty much what has happened with MMORPGs.
The reason is devs don't succeed at sandbox games is because they say "sandbox", but then add multiple servers, allow for players to have their own servers and such. A sandbox should be ala Eve: one server for everyone.
If there is a sandbox anywhere with a huge world that can be explored without constantly running into mobs every 5 meters, PvP and all that, has some crafting and gathering PLEASE tell me.
These are very simple requirements but I am not going to build it although I could.
If there is a sandbox anywhere with a huge world that can be explored without constantly running into mobs every 5 meters, PvP and all that, has some crafting and gathering PLEASE tell me.
These are very simple requirements but I am not going to build it although I could.
try salem
IMPORTANT: Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING. Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally. If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead. I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING. Thank you.
I think if a company did it right it would have a huge audience. But nobody is willing to take that risk.
Holden, anything "done right" does well. There's not a person here that disagrees with that.
It's not like devs are saying "I dunno, man. We could do it right and see how it goes, but we'd be putting a lot on the line here." They're trying to figure out what "right" is. If you know, please tell them so we can get that ultimate sandbox for you and move past this recurring and very bizarre statement.
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 see a lot of hate for mortal online. There are still tons of people that play, even the furthest of towns have big populations. so either you guys "heard" it failed and never checked it for yourself, or just outright assumed. and FYI, a "Failed" game doesn`t run for 5 years if its not making money...
They're failing because people equate sandbox to mean "PVP". EQ was a sandbox PVE game, just as an example (I know everyone likes to think it was a themepark, it absolutely was not a themepark, WOW was the first true themepark).
The simple fact is that PVP MMORPG players are a fairly small minority of the pie. However, content generation becomes an issue in PVE games, so developers are reticent to develop multiple cities, and multiple zones covering the same level range, etc, because its viewed as "wasted" content because "not everyone will see it". Combine that with the fact that everything is ultra casualized (i.e. super fast leveling times, quest hubs, etc) and you create the perfect recipe for content locusts. Its not a recipe for staying power.
When you create an MMO and make it a place people want to stick around, by actually promoting the multiplayer aspect, it creates a world, a place people want to go and stay in. When I say promoting I don't mean advertising. I mean having mechanics in the game that facilitate community, grouping, etc. Which unfortunately no PVE game in the last 10 years has done.
So it comes down to do you want A. Make a bunch of money in the first 6-12 months of the games release, or B. Make a steady amount of money by keeping subscribers around for years. Sadly, because of the monetization based nature of the gaming industry now, its about making money hand over fist. Not about making a product you're proud about, that has staying power, and is beloved by a community of people.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
i see a lot of hate for mortal online. There are still tons of people that play, even the furthest of towns have big populations. so either you guys "heard" it failed and never checked it for yourself, or just outright assumed. and FYI, a "Failed" game doesn`t run for 5 years if its not making money...
People blow my mind.
here are some FACTS to straighten you out...
Here is fact #1 regarding their ongoing loses: Those orange lines are negative.. meaning losses.
Then there is the population chart which differ from your claim of "big populations":
So Friday the max population was around 500 players. This IS supposed to be massively multiplayer right?
It's because no one has managed to make an EvE Online type of sandbox on the ground, yet.. EvE is the only one with a real market and complex geopolitical gameplay along side of your standard mmo grind type gameplay that has succeeded for many many many years. But eh.. space ships arent everyone's cup of tea. Mmo's need to stop making worlds with a single market (auction house), for example..
EVE is the epitome of a niche game. CCP makes money off EVE because its players are willing to spend thousands on ships, lose the ship and happily buy more like nothing happened.
If mmo devs apply EVE's economy and real market/whatever to traditional mmorpgs (sandbox or themepark) they would crash and burn. My opinion of course. That works for EVE because their small playerbase dont care about anything else.
EDIT: also remember EVE is not a video game, its a CCP and NASA experiment on real people lol
If there is a sandbox anywhere with a huge world that can be explored without constantly running into mobs every 5 meters, PvP and all that, has some crafting and gathering PLEASE tell me.
These are very simple requirements but I am not going to build it although I could.
try salem
Looked it over. Is this PvP? Nothing saying that on the description just kind of saying the world gets dangerous further out.
If there is a sandbox anywhere with a huge world that can be explored without constantly running into mobs every 5 meters, PvP and all that, has some crafting and gathering PLEASE tell me.
These are very simple requirements but I am not going to build it although I could.
try salem
Looked it over. Is this PvP? Nothing saying that on the description just kind of saying the world gets dangerous further out.
There's not much PVP. If you could, post what you think of it afterwards.
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
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
cause they are really just deathmatch pvp clones that I can get in fps games lol. i find pvp WAY more fun in planetside 2, than any other deathmatch pvp mmo. only exception is eve, but the pve is so boring that I quit
i find pvp deathmatch games more fun in games like ark too than mmorpgs.
star wars galaxies was a sandbox, and had tons of pve, but the pvp was amazing...it had BOTH amazing pve and pvp
asheron's call was a sandbox, but did have a pvp server and that was tons of fun, but pve servers you could still turn on pvp and again, like swg, pve and pvp were both equally good...unlike deathmatch pvp mmos.
minecraft itself is a sandbox with amazing pve, pvp servers are fun too. but minecraft is definitely not a mmorpg
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
cause they are really just deathmatch pvp clones that I can get in fps games lol. i find pvp WAY more fun in planetside 2, than any other deathmatch pvp mmo. only exception is eve, but the pve is so boring that I quit
i find pvp deathmatch games more fun in games like ark too than mmorpgs.
star wars galaxies was a sandbox, and had tons of pve, but the pvp was amazing...it had BOTH amazing pve and pvp
asheron's call was a sandbox, but did have a pvp server and that was tons of fun, but pve servers you could still turn on pvp and again, like swg, pve and pvp were both equally good...unlike deathmatch pvp mmos.
minecraft itself is a sandbox with amazing pve, pvp servers are fun too. but minecraft is definitely not a mmorpg
Seems a bit weird to call them deathmatch PVP clones. Deathmatch has always implied a constant FFA battle, whereas PVP MMORPGs involve very infrequent combat. Personally I think they struggle to even qualify as "PVP MMORPGs" since you typically spend more time in non-fighting activities (travel, crafting, waiting, etc) than fighting.
So they're not really clones. They're their own distinct casual type of PVP, whose closest genre relative would be survival games (some of whom have similar casual PVP.)
But you're right that the reason these games never catch on is rooted in lackluster gameplay. They provide mediocre, casual PVP. The weird part (and perhaps a testament to their low quality) is that even though this PVP is unarguably more casual (you can achieve non-skill advantages over your opponents through population and/or progression) it nevertheless manages to be much less popular than pure PVP games (like MOBA, RTS, FPS, etc)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't think it's PVP that causes these games to fail (fail to reach a broader market), it's the lack of interesting content to take part in outside of PVP.
Most of these games still have the PVE we were experiencing in 2002. Kill mob, get xp... rinse and repeat for a month or more ( oh, as well as as, get ganked every once in a while)... The market for games that are merely shells you can build a sandcastle in or murder anyone you want, is just not that broad.
This worked long ago because it was still a novelty to play with so many people in one world, that just isn't anything special in this day and age.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Yeah... I'd like to point out the only sandbox games to choose from is Mincraft and it's 20+ clones or Eve Online, Age of Wolin, Darkfall, Mortal and maybe Archeage?
The only ones that are failing are Darkfall, Mortal Online, and the Minecraft clones. Why are they failing? They're bad games.
Entropia universe is a title not on there that should be. It is no where near failing however, so it might go against the popular opinion of this thread. Oh it's been around since 2004 and has been updated several times.
Wurm online still has very active servers and I believe recently released on steam, again not failing.
If Age of Wulin is considered a sandbox (it isn't btw) then so is Lineage 2 (much more so than AoW imo) and it is still up and running and has been since 2003.
There are plenty more examples out there my point being: Pointless thread is pointless.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Comments
I think if a company did it right it would have a huge audience. But nobody is willing to take that risk.
You're free to make the decision to go on a killing spree or became a thief, but there will be consequences if you are caught.
It is not like companies are not taking risks. The first MOBA is a risk. World of Tank was a risk before it got big. Warframe was a risk. But they don't have to take risks that you like, right?
Probably the biggest "risk" taken in recent years was SWTORs heavy focus on a single-player game quality story. But when it comes to actual core mechanics and gameplay, there are too few willing to take risks.
Take your standard combat found in games like WoW for example. That type of combat worked for the earlier games in the genre, and so it kind of stuck, and everyone kept using it. Does it work pretty well? Sure. But can it be improved upon and made more interesting? Definitely. Unfortunately even when someone does try it a different way, because that game isn't a massive success usually nobody bothers to really take anything from it. It is just discarded as a bad game rather than devs analyzing it and saying "How can we remove what made it bad and use the good parts?"
Could you imagine if at some point it was decided by the industry that "Hey, Pong works. We should make every game play just like Pong, but call it something else and make the paddles and ball look a little different". That's pretty much what has happened with MMORPGs.
If there is a sandbox anywhere with a huge world that can be explored without constantly running into mobs every 5 meters, PvP and all that, has some crafting and gathering PLEASE tell me.
These are very simple requirements but I am not going to build it although I could.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
Holden, anything "done right" does well. There's not a person here that disagrees with that.
It's not like devs are saying "I dunno, man. We could do it right and see how it goes, but we'd be putting a lot on the line here." They're trying to figure out what "right" is. If you know, please tell them so we can get that ultimate sandbox for you and move past this recurring and very bizarre statement.
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
People blow my mind.
They're failing because people equate sandbox to mean "PVP". EQ was a sandbox PVE game, just as an example (I know everyone likes to think it was a themepark, it absolutely was not a themepark, WOW was the first true themepark).
The simple fact is that PVP MMORPG players are a fairly small minority of the pie. However, content generation becomes an issue in PVE games, so developers are reticent to develop multiple cities, and multiple zones covering the same level range, etc, because its viewed as "wasted" content because "not everyone will see it". Combine that with the fact that everything is ultra casualized (i.e. super fast leveling times, quest hubs, etc) and you create the perfect recipe for content locusts. Its not a recipe for staying power.
When you create an MMO and make it a place people want to stick around, by actually promoting the multiplayer aspect, it creates a world, a place people want to go and stay in. When I say promoting I don't mean advertising. I mean having mechanics in the game that facilitate community, grouping, etc. Which unfortunately no PVE game in the last 10 years has done.
So it comes down to do you want A. Make a bunch of money in the first 6-12 months of the games release, or B. Make a steady amount of money by keeping subscribers around for years. Sadly, because of the monetization based nature of the gaming industry now, its about making money hand over fist. Not about making a product you're proud about, that has staying power, and is beloved by a community of people.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Here is fact #1 regarding their ongoing loses:
Those orange lines are negative.. meaning losses.
Then there is the population chart which differ from your claim of "big populations":
So Friday the max population was around 500 players. This IS supposed to be massively multiplayer right?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
If mmo devs apply EVE's economy and real market/whatever to traditional mmorpgs (sandbox or themepark) they would crash and burn. My opinion of course. That works for EVE because their small playerbase dont care about anything else.
EDIT: also remember EVE is not a video game, its a CCP and NASA experiment on real people lol
Looked it over. Is this PvP? Nothing saying that on the description just kind of saying the world gets dangerous further out.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
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
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
i find pvp deathmatch games more fun in games like ark too than mmorpgs.
star wars galaxies was a sandbox, and had tons of pve, but the pvp was amazing...it had BOTH amazing pve and pvp
asheron's call was a sandbox, but did have a pvp server and that was tons of fun, but pve servers you could still turn on pvp and again, like swg, pve and pvp were both equally good...unlike deathmatch pvp mmos.
minecraft itself is a sandbox with amazing pve, pvp servers are fun too. but minecraft is definitely not a mmorpg
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
So they're not really clones. They're their own distinct casual type of PVP, whose closest genre relative would be survival games (some of whom have similar casual PVP.)
But you're right that the reason these games never catch on is rooted in lackluster gameplay. They provide mediocre, casual PVP. The weird part (and perhaps a testament to their low quality) is that even though this PVP is unarguably more casual (you can achieve non-skill advantages over your opponents through population and/or progression) it nevertheless manages to be much less popular than pure PVP games (like MOBA, RTS, FPS, etc)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Most of these games still have the PVE we were experiencing in 2002. Kill mob, get xp... rinse and repeat for a month or more ( oh, as well as as, get ganked every once in a while)... The market for games that are merely shells you can build a sandcastle in or murder anyone you want, is just not that broad.
This worked long ago because it was still a novelty to play with so many people in one world, that just isn't anything special in this day and age.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Shouldn't it be closed?
Wurm online still has very active servers and I believe recently released on steam, again not failing.
If Age of Wulin is considered a sandbox (it isn't btw) then so is Lineage 2 (much more so than AoW imo) and it is still up and running and has been since 2003.
There are plenty more examples out there my point being: Pointless thread is pointless.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.