Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Just 1 sandbox planet, please.


mattgyver's Avatar


mattgyver
05.25.2012 , 09:13 AM | #51
Quote: Originally Posted by MajikMyst View Post
So let me get this straight?? If we are against adding a sandbox element to the game we are either Fear Mongers or WOW drones..

Can any of sandbox people dig a little deeper and actually come up with a reason that we can discuss instead of just resorting to name calling..

Or is it because you can't come up with a reason to add sandbox elements, so you resort to name calling??

In either case.. I see no reason to add sandbox elements.. There is no reason to attempt to turn this game into something else.. Adding the fact that games with sandbox elements haven't done very well and you actually have a reason against such an idea..
It's fatigue from seeing this mistake happening over and over again on the forums. If the design team does not change the paradigm for this game in some way then this game is going to be a niche game (those who want an online co-rpg). The theme park advocates are a natural extension of the mentality that caused this problem initially. The game has playthrough problems, and this is because it has linear content with gear-grind raids as the only endgame. I back this up with the sub loss and PR problems this title has engendered in a very short time. Its gone from WoW killer to the proof that WoW was a unique situation that can't be duplicated. Sandbox wouln't hurt you, but more theme park will result in more of the same.

Sorry, not going to get baited into counter-name calling. Don't care enough at this point.

mattgyver's Avatar


mattgyver
05.25.2012 , 09:16 AM | #52
Quote: Originally Posted by kirorx View Post
SWG was bleeding subs to WOW.
LA/SOE were afraid to lose any more players and wanted to be competitive (so out came the NGE), but they are Shortsighted.

There are alot of people (and i imagine more so in this Dungeons and Dragons crowd) that prefer the Warcraft IP over Star Wars.

It was not that SWG was a bad game it was just never going to hold on to players that are not starwars fans.

I dont play WOW because i HATE elves, but that is me and that does not make WOW bad. I can wager that the majoirty of gamers are the opposite and prefer Elves over Jedi.

I never played Matrix Online because i could play a Starwars game and i never watched Matrix past the 1st one. Do you see the trend?

When you have an IP like starwars, you have to deal with the fact that some people dont care about starwars and no matter what the game is like, they will be happier on something they enjoy
The SWG vs. WoW argument is a terrible comparison to use here. Different market, different technologies, different demographics. SWG always gets brought out by the flat earth crowd to try and justify the banality of this game as being commercially viable.

mattgyver's Avatar


mattgyver
05.25.2012 , 09:18 AM | #53
Quote: Originally Posted by Darth_Halford View Post
So, because we may have legitimate gripes about the addition of sandbox gameplay, we are automatically fearmongers and gives you the freedom to create straw-men.

How cute.

Here's the deal: we're not "No-change crowd" and we're not trying to activly block "anything". We have a reasonable dislike about sandbox gameplay and don't want to see it here. Any comments about how it will be popular or "save the game" is immediatly called into question when no sandbox mmo made more than 500k subsribers for a long period of time, nor has any sandbox mmo's been made in recent years. The themepark subgenre has taken off like a rocket. It's a show of change of taste.
Yes, I'm sure SWG was great back in its day, but almost nobody wants that anymore.
The game is still a highly successful MMO, and all it needs is more content (of the same that it has) to keep people interested.
yeah, you really aren't bringing anything to the table here man. Just let them say it because the company does a better job. We get it, the game is great, nothing to see here move along. You get your SWTOR junior status-quo badge.

livnthedream's Avatar


livnthedream
05.25.2012 , 12:35 PM | #54
Quote: Originally Posted by mattgyver View Post
The SWG vs. WoW argument is a terrible comparison to use here. Different market, different technologies, different demographics. SWG always gets brought out by the flat earth crowd to try and justify the banality of this game as being commercially viable.
its actually not a terrible comparison. prior to wows release swg was expected to be the first western mmo to break 1m subs. it had the money and the ip to do it. when it failed to reach those expectations and topped out at 300k it was widely believed that the mmo market was tapped, that there just really wasnt the playerbase to do it. then along comes wow, breaking 1m and continuing on without breaking a sweat and completely shattering the idea that the playerbase didnt exist. keep in mind that was when wow was in its infancy. at the time when there wasnt much of a market, or even really much of a market differential.

VanorDM's Avatar


VanorDM
05.25.2012 , 12:59 PM | #55
Thing is, a sandbox style game can work, provided 250k or so users is enough to make it profitable.

EvE for example is completely sandbox, and it does ok. It doesn't have huge numbers but enough to make the game profitable. If a game company is happy with that, then there's no reason they couldn't make a sandbox style game.

But most don't seem to be happy with a small profit, so they make games that are more theampark in nature because those have proven to be the most popular types of MMO's.

DiabloDoom's Avatar


DiabloDoom
05.25.2012 , 01:04 PM | #56
Quote: Originally Posted by VanorDM View Post
Thing is, a sandbox style game can work, provided 250k or so users is enough to make it profitable.

EvE for example is completely sandbox, and it does ok. It doesn't have huge numbers but enough to make the game profitable. If a game company is happy with that, then there's no reason they couldn't make a sandbox style game.

But most don't seem to be happy with a small profit, so they make games that are more theampark in nature because those have proven to be the most popular types of MMO's.
Actually EVE Online does do quite well, and has been steadily rising since release, kind of leveling out now though at around 400k-450k active accounts. It barely had 50k at the end of the first year.

Cerion's Avatar


Cerion
05.25.2012 , 01:15 PM | #57
Quote: Originally Posted by rollnstns View Post
I appreciate your post, this is an excellent way to have a dialogue.

My use of the "sandbox" term is aimed at creating some of your own things to do.

Decorating

Non-instanced housing, hence my asking for a planet. cities would be great, but i'd take what i can get.

Exploring without "roads" and I love your hunting idea.

I'm fine with the crafting as it is currently, but being able to harvest would be cool. (I enjoyed making harvestor runs though.)

Player NPC vendors. Just because I liked visiting different shops looking for different items.

Look, all I'm saying is throw those of us who enjoy these kinds of things a bone.

None of this would interfere with the core game, just some time away from the monotony of....
I'm still not sure what exactly you're asking for. It seems to just boil down to housing. Because right now, you could go to Hoth or Tatooine and not even really bother with quests if you wanted, and roam around killing stuff. There are a few open 'dungeons' on each world, you can harvest resources.

I'm not saying I agree of disagree with you...I'm just not sure 'sandbox' is what you're really asking for here.
Good will always triumph because Evil is lazy.

Kalfear's Avatar


Kalfear
05.25.2012 , 01:57 PM | #58
Quote: Originally Posted by livnthedream View Post
its actually not a terrible comparison. prior to wows release swg was expected to be the first western mmo to break 1m subs. it had the money and the ip to do it. when it failed to reach those expectations and topped out at 300k it was widely believed that the mmo market was tapped, that there just really wasnt the playerbase to do it. then along comes wow, breaking 1m and continuing on without breaking a sweat and completely shattering the idea that the playerbase didnt exist. keep in mind that was when wow was in its infancy. at the time when there wasnt much of a market, or even really much of a market differential.
Yup and prior to that DAoC was expected to break 10 million subs

See I can do the same as you!

SWG sold 1.5 million box sales in its life time and had a first month cancellation rate of 70%
the cacellation rate rose to 80% during the first 90 days period

How do you get 1 million active subs from that?

This was released (at the time and no im not going to go dig through years old financials to prove what was common knowledge to all back then, no matter if they admit it or not) by SOE financials at the time and was all the talk on the forums and fan sites (just like it is here for TOR now). Anyone telling you different is either lieing or just mistaken because they use falsified data from fansites and sandbox promoting websites.
In regards to lessening F2P and Preferred restrictions
In GAMING, as in LIFE,
You get what you pay for
No game restriction is so dire that $15.00/month will not eliminate it

Jagganatha's Avatar


Jagganatha
05.25.2012 , 02:03 PM | #59
Just one? No, all th eplanets should have sandbox elements... How can you have tatooine and not be able to raid cities ? Main bases?


Am i not playing star wars?
Its a sad day when you hae to cancel a pre order based on something getting Fixed when it wasnt broken.

MajikMyst's Avatar


MajikMyst
05.25.2012 , 02:18 PM | #60
Quote: Originally Posted by Jagganatha View Post
Am i not playing star wars?
You are playing Star Wars.. As opposed to land wars.. Try not to ignore one of the words.. There are two there.. Just using your point against you..
Who is the more foolish? The fool or the fool that follows him?

[.] Lost but never forgotten!! 12-01-2011 R.I.P.