Pan'Theon: Rise' of th'e Fal'Len - #1 Thread in MMO

Zantox_sl

shitlord
38
0
Everything you just said is the reason this industry is failing. This entire post sums up everything that is wrong with MMO's and no matter how many games follow this formula and continue to fail, I still see posts like this informing us this is what we need to do.
If you attracted 430,000 players (assuming they all paid $50 a box) - which is the EQ number -, you could only afford a $10 million dev + marketing (combined) budget to pay itself off in box sales (assuming a mostly digital distribution mix). That is just to break even. In order to made a reasonable return, the development budget would need to be more like $6 million plus 1-2 million of marketing. You aren't getting 430,000 people to buy the game you want, for $50, on a $6-7 million dev budget AND pay a sub fee for a long enough period of time (which is where the real return would happen). That just isn't happening.

Go look at what Shroud of the Avatar is doing on $4 million on dev budget and that is (roughly) what you can buy. Plus it is even being made in Austin, which is much cheaper than California or the east coast, so you are really getting good bang for your buck. Camelot Unchained is $2 million+.

If you want higher production values (higher poly / better textures / etc), double the budget easily. Now we are talking a million players. Your game isn't selling to a million players. A million people don't want to waste their time regging up, or spending an hour LFG. There is too much other choice. Just look at the types of games that make money now. Either super cheap to make indie games, mass appeal games with large budgets or free-to-play games with a moderate budget.

You can take your pick as to which of those buckets you want your game to be in: Indie (e.g. looks like SotA or CU), Mass Appeal (the high production values) or F2P (medium production values, but different business model). That is the reality of the industry. Also, the industry is FAR from failing. More money and more games are being made than ever before -- at astounding growth rates (both foreign and domestic). The only thing that is failing are games that cannot keep people's attention. Those games fail HARD. There is just too much choice otherwise.

By the way, that doesn't mean it needs to be a theme park, rails MMO. It just means YOU HAVE TO HAVE RELEVANT SOLO PLAYER CONTENT.
 

Gecko_sl

shitlord
1,482
0
Great post Jarek. I feel exactly the same.

Cliffnotes:

Jareks new name is Grandpa Storm.
Fukkkoffff. He's the same age I am. The problem is there's nothing on the horizon for us anymore, since everything is geared away from the AD&D/DIKU setup and more to the single serve streamlined MMO setup.
 

Merlin_sl

shitlord
2,329
1
If you attracted 430,000 players (assuming they all paid $50 a box) - which is the EQ number -, you could only afford a $10 million dev + marketing (combined) budget to pay itself off in box sales (assuming a mostly digital distribution mix). That is just to break even. In order to made a reasonable return, the development budget would need to be more like $6 million plus 1-2 million of marketing. You aren't getting 430,000 people to buy the game you want, for $50, on a $6-7 million dev budget AND pay a sub fee for a long enough period of time (which is where the real return would happen). That just isn't happening.

Go look at what Shroud of the Avatar is doing on $4 million on dev budget and that is (roughly) what you can buy. Plus it is even being made in Austin, which is much cheaper than California or the east coast, so you are really getting good bang for your buck. Camelot Unchained is $2 million+.

If you want higher production values (higher poly / better textures / etc), double the budget easily. Now we are talking a million players. Your game isn't selling to a million players. A million people don't want to waste their time regging up, or spending an hour LFG. There is too much other choice. Just look at the types of games that make money now. Either super cheap to make indie games, mass appeal games with large budgets or free-to-play games with a moderate budget.

You can take your pick as to which of those buckets you want your game to be in: Indie (e.g. looks like SotA or CU), Mass Appeal (the high production values) or F2P (medium production values, but different business model). That is the reality of the industry. Also, the industry is FAR from failing. More money and more games are being made than ever before -- at astounding growth rates (both foreign and domestic). The only thing that is failing are games that cannot keep people's attention. Those games fail HARD. There is just too much choice otherwise.

By the way, that doesn't mean it needs to be a theme park, rails MMO. It just means YOU HAVE TO HAVE RELEVANT SOLO PLAYER CONTENT.
Great post!

Only..........what is an MMO? Massive MULTIPLAYER online roleplaying game right? So your suggestion is to remove the M and continue developing. Hey, while were at it, why don't we take the S out of FPS? So lets remove a key ingredient from a genre. Lets remove the shooter from First Person Shooters right? Or how bout we remove the S from Real Time Strategy games? That's cool right? Its just one part, whats the big deal? You see where I'm going here? How many games have to be released before companys see its not working? How many failed MMO's have we seen since WOW? Jesus, a dozen now? Nearly a billion dollars in development flushed down the toilet because companys still think you can make a solo game out of an MMO. Its not working. How many games have to fail before they realize this?
 

shabushabu

Molten Core Raider
1,408
185
If you attracted 430,000 players (assuming they all paid $50 a box) - which is the EQ number -, you could only afford a $10 million dev + marketing (combined) budget to pay itself off in box sales (assuming a mostly digital distribution mix). That is just to break even. In order to made a reasonable return, the development budget would need to be more like $6 million plus 1-2 million of marketing. You aren't getting 430,000 people to buy the game you want, for $50, on a $6-7 million dev budget AND pay a sub fee for a long enough period of time (which is where the real return would happen). That just isn't happening.

Go look at what Shroud of the Avatar is doing on $4 million on dev budget and that is (roughly) what you can buy. Plus it is even being made in Austin, which is much cheaper than California or the east coast, so you are really getting good bang for your buck. Camelot Unchained is $2 million+.

If you want higher production values (higher poly / better textures / etc), double the budget easily. Now we are talking a million players. Your game isn't selling to a million players. A million people don't want to waste their time regging up, or spending an hour LFG. There is too much other choice. Just look at the types of games that make money now. Either super cheap to make indie games, mass appeal games with large budgets or free-to-play games with a moderate budget.

You can take your pick as to which of those buckets you want your game to be in: Indie (e.g. looks like SotA or CU), Mass Appeal (the high production values) or F2P (medium production values, but different business model). That is the reality of the industry. Also, the industry is FAR from failing. More money and more games are being made than ever before -- at astounding growth rates (both foreign and domestic). The only thing that is failing are games that cannot keep people's attention. Those games fail HARD. There is just too much choice otherwise.

By the way, that doesn't mean it needs to be a theme park, rails MMO. It just means YOU HAVE TO HAVE RELEVANT SOLO PLAYER CONTENT.
Your math is way off bro.
 

nate_sl

shitlord
204
1
What I want:
-Meaningful loot that may last many levels.
-The option to solo, but with significantly decreased experience and loot rewards.
-No exclamation points, mini maps, or instant travel to places other than city hubs.
-Risk. Fear of death.
-Class dependence and defined roles.
-Visible and valuable rewards that are limited in quantity.
-A combination of instanced and FFA content.

What I don't want:
-An exceedingly grindy leveling curve.
-No reason to leave the risk free loot and experience fields.
-A lack of anything to do because 2000 people are competing for content made for a few hundred (probably involves some form of instancing).
-A game that even the derpest of derpers will eventually complete all content.
-A world so controlled that there is no such thing as emergent gameplay or unintended mechanic usage. If you never have to fix anything, it's already broken.
 

Zantox_sl

shitlord
38
0
Great post!

Only..........what is an MMO? Massive MULTIPLAYER online roleplaying game right? So your suggestion is to remove the M and continue developing. Hey, while were at it, why don't we take the S out of FPS? So lets remove a key ingredient from a genre. Lets remove the shooter from First Person Shooters right? Or how bout we remove the S from Real Time Strategy games? That's cool right? Its just one part, whats the big deal? You see where I'm going here? How many games have to be released before companys see its not working? How many failed MMO's have we seen since WOW? Jesus, a dozen now? Nearly a billion dollars in development flushed down the toilet because companys still think you can make a solo game out of an MMO. Its not working. How many games have to fail before they realize this?
Great post!

Only ... what did I say?

Zantox_sl said:
They [sic ... The Key] is not to make soloing worthless,it is to offer a mix of content. What WoW and Rift both did was to offer a leveling experience that allowed you to solo all the way to max,but at the same time offered you a big reward (fun, items, diversity in experience) in playing through instanced dungeons. If you only allow people to effectively play grouped, you aren't going to be attracting a sizable audience for a sustained period of time.
Also, a bit melodramatic much? CALL OF DUTY HAS A LEVELING SYSTEM! MUST NOT BE A SHOOTER! STARCRAFT REQUIRES TWITCH, MUCH NOT BE A STRATEGY GAME! All successful games have a mix of elements. Successful MMOs have both multiplayer content and solo content. This is especially important for games with subscriptions. F2P is a different animal.

Lastly, the games that YOU say failed only declined after their endgame got stale and development didn't keep up (Rift did well for a good while, but it turned out that their group content was too hard/grindy for a lot of people and so people quit in the first couple of months. Those that were good enough burned through the content and then had nothing else to do). SW:TOR is actually making a LOT of money right now and is growing, so that game didn't fail. ESO is brand new, so TBD on that one. DDO is doing well. LOTRO is doing well. Honestly, maybe STO isn't doing well? I don't know. Atari made money by selling Cryptic, so there is that. NWN/Tera I don't know about. TSW/AOC failed because of lack of content/polish (on a lower budget!). WAR failed because it sucked past level 20. GW2 was successful for NCSoft. Defiance isn't doing well, which was a very different type of experience altogether, so I hesitate to put that in the same bucket as the rest.

When it comes down to it, MOST MMOs have been successful for their investors/publishers! Not "billions flushed".
 

Aleatha

Silver Knight of the Realm
96
0
If you attracted 430,000 players (assuming they all paid $50 a box) - which is the EQ number -, you could only afford a $10 million dev + marketing (combined) budget to pay itself off in box sales (assuming a mostly digital distribution mix). That is just to break even.
I agree with some of what you wrote but not sure how you are getting those numbers. ($50/game - 30% steam cut) * 430k players = 15m roughly. That said I think 430k players for a niche game like this is unrealistic. Probably more like 100-150k with possible growth down the line assuming you make a good game. At that point you are looking at Shroud of the Avatar budget numbers.
 

Zantox_sl

shitlord
38
0
Your math is way off bro.
Rough math is $50 box = $25 profit to publisher. Digital is 70% gross margin, so $35/copy (unless you get everyone to buy from your website ... which is not common without lots of marketing dollars or a last name of Roberts. So most of your digital sales are coming through Steam or other outlet), less other platform costs (hosting, analytics, transaction services, etc), which is another 5-20% (really this is a mix of fixed and marginal costs, thus the wide range). There really is a lot of shit that goes into launching and managing an online game that is more than dev cost.
 

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
71,728
213,048
its us oldtimers who made everquest a success(i was 27 when eq went live). soloing is not a bad thing but grouping should be promoted and to do that you need to make it worthwhile over soloing. that does not mean you make some classes useless outside of a group.
 

kudos

<Banned>
2,363
695
I don't really get why people think only certain classes could solo. I was soloing on my warrior during hell levels when I couldn't find a group. It took forever but champions are made from adversity.
 

Kirun

Buzzfeed Editor
<Gold Donor>
18,706
34,875
Massively multiplayer has in the very fucking definitionmassively interactive. Ultima Online, EverQuest, DAoC, and AC had more interactions that occurred in this massively setting than any recent modern MMO, and it's nowhere close. That is, for example, in UO, a plethora of different interactions could occur to you or by you at any one time, anywhere in the entire world, under many different circumstances. WoW onwward, these interactions are removed or restricted in a number of different ways, from segregation of players in discrete, controlled numbers (instances, battlegrounds) to even the types of interactions they can do to you or you to them (e.g., I can't steal that dk's nightshade, and actually, he can cast a spell without any nightshade, so two gameplay elements have been removed: getting/keeping the nightshade safe and my attempting to steal it). Compound these interactions and you see the massively has all but been removed the further along we regress in this shitpile of an industry.
It's hilarious how you lament about the "hand-holding" present in modern games, yet that's exactly what you're asking for. You feel that game makers should force others to group with you, force others to use your tradeskills, force others to interact with you. It's the same thing you reject in other games, yet you're fully in support of it when it benefits you. "Well, you see Mr. developers, don't holdtheirhands, but hold mine by forcing them to group with me!".

The systems that you want game developers to implement are already present, you just aren't forced into complying with them anymore. Nothing is stoppingyoufrom "massively interacting" with people - you know, starting up a group, a guild, a RP session(nerds), or whatever other interactive activity that you felt EQ/UO did so well.

When it comes down to it, MOST MMOs have been successful for their investors/publishers! Not "billions flushed".
Nuh-uh! They haven't been "massively interactive" enough! Failures! All of them! This industry is in free-fall!