anyone who reads massively, or posts on massively, isn't casual.
In fact, I would go so far as to suggest once a player actually has enough gaming language/exposure to truly refer to themselves as "casual", or be exposed to someone else calling them "casual" in fact indicates that they cease to be one thereafter.
Real "casual" players never make it out of newbie hubs.
While I would agree with you, that the warhammer license isn't going to instantly pull in 10's of millions of fans like the Star Wars brand might... The market share will be small, but that has nothing to do with the success of a single title released in a single year.
And it certainly doesn't mean its not valuable either as a license.
Not once did you ever mention how much money games actually cost to make.
All those games you mentioned with the exception of the Witcher probably costs multiple times the amount in development and marketing that Space Marine did. They're marquee games, and they're also all on their 3rd 4th and 5th iterations of their life cycles....
Space Marine, was made on a budget, with a pretty small team (relic is small), with the unreal liscense in a short period of time. 1.2million sold in for a game like that could potentially return more on the initial investment than most games ever hope to. You named Blockbusters only. We really only get a couple of those a year, and you are lucky to be involved with one once in your entire career in games if you do.
You ACTUALLY need to look at the realities of the industry as a whole more my friend. You are only focusing on the cream of the crop at the top. That is not the only measurement of success.
To be perfectly fair, this is just a money matter, it has nothing to do with the brand. The 40k IP is still just as valuable.
The game could have had amazing production pipelines laid out, the team could have been trending well, the leads and directors could have all been on the same page, and that still wouldn't change the fact that THQ doesn't have the money to develop it for the next few years.
Remember Warhammer online sucked because the game they made sucked, not because people don't instantly identify with the IP.
Now as for THQ, they went shopping around for additional investors and couldn't find any (probably cause A. THQ has way too much baggage to get in bed with right now, and B. MMO clones are risky right now if you ask me, and thats what this MMO was gonna be.).
The brand itself, is still ripe for someone to make a great game with.
For what its worth it certainly sounds like you played it more than enough to have gained a realistic impression about what the game has to offer, and decided it wasn't for you.
For that I salute you sir.
Me personally, I had to try the trial almost 3 times before I got exposed to a few particular events that clicked in my brain and made me an EVE player for life.
Even when I'm not actively playing much, and just updating skills, Its still the only MMO that gets my subscription money every month regardless because it offers me things I cannot get anywhere else in the games industry. I actively want to support there effort even if i'm not getting much out of it because I believe in their business model entirely, and want to see more games like EVE.
I agree with you. And we may never see innovations from big publishers ever again because of the buying tendancies you describe, and the fact that MMO's are mainstream now more than ever before.
However, I wouldn't call the past and much needed future evolutions very minimal (to the informed users). I would argue that KEY DIFFERENTIATORS are the most important thing in driving forward. You never "camp checked" in world of warcraft, and it was the primary way you spent your time in everquest. For people that play MMO's, that wasn't a minor difference, it was a huge leap forward, and certainly even a risk because at the time the idea of trying to make MMO's accessible (solo quests) hadn't really been tried. It payed off for blizzard in the long run though.
So in my opinion, the next big publisher who starts to take the question "what do the shed users from WoW, who quit and have no intention of ever going back really want?" seriously, and comes up with a brilliant answer, will move the industry forward. Innovations naturally have risks, and most of them do not pay off. But when they do, the company in question will make tons of money, and we will eventually take them for granted after too.
I'm not against free to play at all, in fact, i care very little about how a game is monetized.
If its fun, i do not mind giving them my money as i see fit, whether its subscription based or has cash shop hooks.
If its not fun, I don't play.
That being said, I think this guy is kind of full of it, if he can't even admit theirs users at the unhealthy ends of the extremes were someone is making some poor choices and either playing entirely too much for their own good, or spending entirely too much for their own good.
This is okay to admit IMO, and much more realistic. But the fact that he can't even concede that suggests he's just trying to pat a bunch of like minded people in a room on the back, and not talk about his user base very seriously.
I personally am so tired of the standard "pick up quest A." in hub. "go to location B. on your map". and do something to complete it as the main means of character progression.
MMO's did not start with quest based drivers for content. In fact, quests were usually very rare, and while at one time (with the advent of 2nd gen MMO's like CoH, and WoW) this felt new and refreshing... Now its simply tired and old. I hate to say it, but I'd actually welcome camp grinds like EQ used to have if they modernized tool sets to stake out said camps and get efficient groups going.
If you want to make an MMO feel new, ignore quest based progression entirely, and make a game that stands on its own with a new/different/non WoW based content driving system. Then, if you work some quests in late in development for flavor its just gravy.
I'm never playing an MMO that has exclamation marks over any heads of any kind ever again.
Even the lowliest, passive, peaceful miner takes his wares to market, sells them for isk and profit. The minerals he mined, are bought, traded, and processed to make potential weapons and ammo that might just be used to blow that very same miner up in the future.
PVE'ers in EVE, are just arms dealers. They're not innocent either.
I'm not so sure to think that a videogame can attract such an exact and dispicable cross section of humanity as a whole isn't just as crazy as this guy is. Grow up, and stop stigmatizing an entire playerbase, it only makes you look ignorant too.
Seriously, we're all GAMERS here, and just because EVE creates an environment where the people that play it, have to work together which will undoubtedly bring out the best and sometimes the worst in people doesn't mean its attracting anybody 'different'. Its a game built around emergant content, which means interactions are meaningful. Both good and bad. Open your eyes, people only ever hear about the "bad" in EVE. People that play EVE are your neighbors, they go to the same schools you did, they went to the same churches. They played on your youth sports team as a kid, and they work in the cube behind you now. Sure, you do have to be into a particularly different type of game to find EVE attractive, but to think this means they're more inclined to sociopathetic tendancies isn't very classy either dude.
Remember, its just a game. I'd probably say the same thing to the twit who gave that panel speech too right now if I could... That shouldn't make you very proud.
Its also just a sheer insult to the entire EVE community that he wasted such an amazing opportunity to give a speech about the hobby so many of us hold dear and he shows a complete lack of class and feels compelled to bring up the particulars of this garbage like theirs some worthy takeaways from it or something? What a drunk.
Everybody has a funny "troll story" to tell if they've gamed long enough (probably not nearly as low as a Goonie troll story but its still probably as absurd). To think its ever worthy of discussion at a convention panel is disgraceful to the online gaming community as a WHOLE.
The Soapbox: Casual is as casual does
Apr 3rd 2012 10:44PM (Massively)In fact, I would go so far as to suggest once a player actually has enough gaming language/exposure to truly refer to themselves as "casual", or be exposed to someone else calling them "casual" in fact indicates that they cease to be one thereafter.
Real "casual" players never make it out of newbie hubs.
WAR40K devs laid off, game will no longer be an MMO
Mar 29th 2012 6:51PM (Massively)While I would agree with you, that the warhammer license isn't going to instantly pull in 10's of millions of fans like the Star Wars brand might... The market share will be small, but that has nothing to do with the success of a single title released in a single year.
And it certainly doesn't mean its not valuable either as a license.
Not once did you ever mention how much money games actually cost to make.
All those games you mentioned with the exception of the Witcher probably costs multiple times the amount in development and marketing that Space Marine did. They're marquee games, and they're also all on their 3rd 4th and 5th iterations of their life cycles....
Space Marine, was made on a budget, with a pretty small team (relic is small), with the unreal liscense in a short period of time. 1.2million sold in for a game like that could potentially return more on the initial investment than most games ever hope to. You named Blockbusters only. We really only get a couple of those a year, and you are lucky to be involved with one once in your entire career in games if you do.
You ACTUALLY need to look at the realities of the industry as a whole more my friend. You are only focusing on the cream of the crop at the top. That is not the only measurement of success.
WAR40K devs laid off, game will no longer be an MMO
Mar 29th 2012 6:40PM (Massively)To be perfectly fair, this is just a money matter, it has nothing to do with the brand. The 40k IP is still just as valuable.
The game could have had amazing production pipelines laid out, the team could have been trending well, the leads and directors could have all been on the same page, and that still wouldn't change the fact that THQ doesn't have the money to develop it for the next few years.
Remember Warhammer online sucked because the game they made sucked, not because people don't instantly identify with the IP.
Now as for THQ, they went shopping around for additional investors and couldn't find any (probably cause A. THQ has way too much baggage to get in bed with right now, and B. MMO clones are risky right now if you ask me, and thats what this MMO was gonna be.).
The brand itself, is still ripe for someone to make a great game with.
Why I Play: EVE Online
Mar 28th 2012 3:02PM (Massively)For what its worth it certainly sounds like you played it more than enough to have gained a realistic impression about what the game has to offer, and decided it wasn't for you.
For that I salute you sir.
Me personally, I had to try the trial almost 3 times before I got exposed to a few particular events that clicked in my brain and made me an EVE player for life.
Even when I'm not actively playing much, and just updating skills, Its still the only MMO that gets my subscription money every month regardless because it offers me things I cannot get anywhere else in the games industry. I actively want to support there effort even if i'm not getting much out of it because I believe in their business model entirely, and want to see more games like EVE.
The Soapbox: Leveling isn't bad -- its implementation is
Mar 28th 2012 9:31AM (Massively)I agree with you. And we may never see innovations from big publishers ever again because of the buying tendancies you describe, and the fact that MMO's are mainstream now more than ever before.
However, I wouldn't call the past and much needed future evolutions very minimal (to the informed users). I would argue that KEY DIFFERENTIATORS are the most important thing in driving forward. You never "camp checked" in world of warcraft, and it was the primary way you spent your time in everquest. For people that play MMO's, that wasn't a minor difference, it was a huge leap forward, and certainly even a risk because at the time the idea of trying to make MMO's accessible (solo quests) hadn't really been tried. It payed off for blizzard in the long run though.
So in my opinion, the next big publisher who starts to take the question "what do the shed users from WoW, who quit and have no intention of ever going back really want?" seriously, and comes up with a brilliant answer, will move the industry forward. Innovations naturally have risks, and most of them do not pay off. But when they do, the company in question will make tons of money, and we will eventually take them for granted after too.
Ngmoco exec: Free-to-play is not exploitative
Mar 28th 2012 9:15AM (Massively)If its fun, i do not mind giving them my money as i see fit, whether its subscription based or has cash shop hooks.
If its not fun, I don't play.
That being said, I think this guy is kind of full of it, if he can't even admit theirs users at the unhealthy ends of the extremes were someone is making some poor choices and either playing entirely too much for their own good, or spending entirely too much for their own good.
This is okay to admit IMO, and much more realistic. But the fact that he can't even concede that suggests he's just trying to pat a bunch of like minded people in a room on the back, and not talk about his user base very seriously.
The Soapbox: Leveling isn't bad -- its implementation is
Mar 27th 2012 2:09PM (Massively)I personally am so tired of the standard "pick up quest A." in hub. "go to location B. on your map". and do something to complete it as the main means of character progression.
MMO's did not start with quest based drivers for content. In fact, quests were usually very rare, and while at one time (with the advent of 2nd gen MMO's like CoH, and WoW) this felt new and refreshing... Now its simply tired and old. I hate to say it, but I'd actually welcome camp grinds like EQ used to have if they modernized tool sets to stake out said camps and get efficient groups going.
If you want to make an MMO feel new, ignore quest based progression entirely, and make a game that stands on its own with a new/different/non WoW based content driving system. Then, if you work some quests in late in development for flavor its just gravy.
I'm never playing an MMO that has exclamation marks over any heads of any kind ever again.
EVE Online's The Mittani issues formal apology for crossing the line [UPDATED]
Mar 27th 2012 9:41AM (Massively)PVE is guised in PVP all the same too (in EVE).
Even the lowliest, passive, peaceful miner takes his wares to market, sells them for isk and profit. The minerals he mined, are bought, traded, and processed to make potential weapons and ammo that might just be used to blow that very same miner up in the future.
PVE'ers in EVE, are just arms dealers. They're not innocent either.
EVE Online's The Mittani issues formal apology for crossing the line [UPDATED]
Mar 27th 2012 9:31AM (Massively)I'm not so sure to think that a videogame can attract such an exact and dispicable cross section of humanity as a whole isn't just as crazy as this guy is. Grow up, and stop stigmatizing an entire playerbase, it only makes you look ignorant too.
Seriously, we're all GAMERS here, and just because EVE creates an environment where the people that play it, have to work together which will undoubtedly bring out the best and sometimes the worst in people doesn't mean its attracting anybody 'different'. Its a game built around emergant content, which means interactions are meaningful. Both good and bad. Open your eyes, people only ever hear about the "bad" in EVE. People that play EVE are your neighbors, they go to the same schools you did, they went to the same churches. They played on your youth sports team as a kid, and they work in the cube behind you now. Sure, you do have to be into a particularly different type of game to find EVE attractive, but to think this means they're more inclined to sociopathetic tendancies isn't very classy either dude.
Remember, its just a game. I'd probably say the same thing to the twit who gave that panel speech too right now if I could... That shouldn't make you very proud.
EVE Online's The Mittani issues formal apology for crossing the line [UPDATED]
Mar 27th 2012 9:13AM (Massively)Its also just a sheer insult to the entire EVE community that he wasted such an amazing opportunity to give a speech about the hobby so many of us hold dear and he shows a complete lack of class and feels compelled to bring up the particulars of this garbage like theirs some worthy takeaways from it or something? What a drunk.
Everybody has a funny "troll story" to tell if they've gamed long enough (probably not nearly as low as a Goonie troll story but its still probably as absurd). To think its ever worthy of discussion at a convention panel is disgraceful to the online gaming community as a WHOLE.