Civilization Online !

He still would get royalties, I believe.

FriendlyFire said:

Come on think of how long we waited for a Civilzation MMO game.

Click to expand...

Said almost nobody ever? Not that it is a bad idea for an MMORPG version, but still its like how nobody asked for TES Online. Except Korean.

Maniacal said:

Its not insurmountable just expensive

Click to expand...

Just as anything on that Earth. It's just a matter of a cost being overweight by benefits. The game may not have more success than Civ5, but it could have some anyway, especially with the link to the Civ series.

It is based on what games are and are not popular and do well in the west and years of experience reading news and discussion and trends in gaming and interacting with other gamers online.

Click to expand...

Well it's a terrible vision of the things. Remember the period of the Playstation 1 games releases ? There were a massive number of massively different genres, and some of them sold very well. Now everything tends to uniformize, for the worst, like in Hollywood for the cinema. Such a vision is terribly straighjacketing and would forbid theorically any new and original games. Because if people just buy what they know and what they can imagine, there's no room anymore for imagination. An advise : stop listening to those stick-in-the-mud people.

Yes and no, there certainly tend to be trends of demands for certain games, usually related to the biggest hit (ie CoD 4's success kind of kicked off a lot of shooters being modern military based ones and much less focus on WW2, but that is partly devs/publishers jumping on the bandwagon). In Asia, however, they are so used to these grindy (often extremely grindy), pay2win (or at least extremely microtransaction heavy) MMORPGs and a lot of people there are used to and expect those games.

Although that is completely taken advantage of and abused by publishers and developers, Guild Wars 2's China release and version has a lot more microtransactions because they can get away with that there.

Asian MMORPGs do have some and in a few cases/periods of time many, players in western countries too, but generally are a turn off to most players.

Click to expand...

In the case of COD it's a game that created a market. And this game is : Counter-Strike. This game had a lot of success, it launched a "fashion" on itself. Thereafter, developers got aware of this success, and just wanted to reproduce it, taking profit from the incredible market it opened at their eyes. "Ah, so people love military shooters ? Good to know. We will give them military shooters then". Nobody knows why Counter-Strike had so much success and not another game, but it opened the way. The game created a market. Sure a market will create games, but originally it's the contrary.

What they don't know is that there is a massive number of people who don't like military shooters. They are a lot more numerous than the people who love military shooters. However, they might love different kinds of games, not only military shooters, so that a single project may not unite them in buying it, being less profitable. But that's it ! People have different tastes. Sure it would be more simple for editors if every people would buy and play military shooters. We are still not here happilly. That's why I said it's a terrible idea.

As to Asian P2W, I think it's tied to those countries societies. Most people are too poor to even buy a video games console, only the rich can do it, and hey, if they are rich, they can pay to win. As simple as that. Plus most of the P2W are F2P. That's just another economic model, but it works in West too.

Maniacal said:

Said almost nobody ever? Not that it is a bad idea for an MMORPG version, but still its like how nobody asked for TES Online. Except Korean.

Click to expand...

If we should wait for players to ask games, we would have COD 1042 by the time, because players have no imagination.

Just as anything on that Earth. It's just a matter of a cost being overweight by benefits. The game may not have more success than Civ5, but it could have some anyway, especially with the link to the Civ series.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I was saying... they will have to weigh the costs vs benefits. However, as I was pointing out, the game may face a lot of difficulties appealing to Western audiences. Even with a link to the Civ series and quite possibly because of that link largely because its design is completely different.

Well it's a terrible vision of the things. Remember the period of the Playstation 1 games releases ? There were a massive number of massively different genres, and some of them sold very well. Now everything tends to uniformize, for the worst, like in Hollywood for the cinema. Such a vision is terribly straighjacketing and would forbid theorically any new and original games. Because if people just buy what they know and what they can imagine, there's no room anymore for imagination. An advise : stop listening to those stick-in-the-mud people.

Click to expand...

You misunderstand what I was saying. I wasn't talking about making them all the same, just that it is a fact that Korean/Asian MMORPGs are not hugely popular in the western markets and have a lot of hurdles they must overcome. It is not that it is trying something new that is problem, or that being different style is necessarily bad (although the unit designs in Civ Online are bizarre and do not appeal to most western audiences at all because they are completely alien and in some ways kind of bad), it is that big MMO publishers & devs like XL Games and Nexon only care about one thing: nickle and diming the players to death (sometimes literally).

Microtransactions influence the entire design of a game, and these Korean ones are generally completely designed around them. Unfortunately this influence is almost always for the worse, it means they will increase the amount of grind to encourage people to spend money to skip the grind, stuff like that.

Extra Credits has a pretty good episode about the cultural differences between the USA and Japan when it comes to games, specifically how they portray guns.

I am in no way supportive of making shallow, mass market games that appeal to the lowest common denominator. This definitely includes MMORPGs since that is generally what they are for and microtransactions are making this even worse.

In the case of COD it's a game that created a market. And this game is : Counter-Strike. This game had a lot of success, it launched a "fashion" on itself. Thereafter, developers got aware of this success, and just wanted to reproduce it, taking profit from the incredible market it opened at their eyes. "Ah, so people love military shooters ? Good to know. We will give them military shooters then". Nobody knows why Counter-Strike had so much success and not another game, but it opened the way. The game created a market. Sure a market will create games, but originally it's the contrary.

Click to expand...

While yes Modern Military is the most popular setting for shooters since Call of Duty 4's run-away success, there are still tonnes of other games. Call of Duty also started out as a WW2 game, so did Battlefield, and progressing to a modern setting was a fairly natural and logical move to change things up (CoD4 also came out two years after Battlefield 2).

It also has absolutely nothing to do with Counter-Strike, I have no idea how you formed that connection. CS was originally a Half-Life 1 mod in the late 1990s, then released as its own game in 1999, CSS came out in 2004, and CS:Go came out in 2012. CS has its own unique style of FPS gameplay that is very different from Call of Duty and pretty much every other shooter. Its had the exact same setting the entire time. A lot of Counter-Strike's success is due to it being able to support a serious competitive scene, which is something its devs have kept in mind with the way they develop it. You don't get the same thing from Call of Duty with the way it is designed.

What they don't know is that there is a massive number of people who don't like military shooters. They are a lot more numerous than the people who love military shooters. However, they might love different kinds of games, not only military shooters, so that a single project may not unite them in buying it, being less profitable. But that's it ! People have different tastes. Sure it would be more simple for editors if every people would buy and play military shooters. We are still not here happilly. That's why I said it's a terrible idea.

Click to expand...

They know that very well, but there are lots of reasons why some AAA studios keep making shooters. Namely they are generally a bit easier and less risky than making something original. The beginning of this Extra Credits mailbag episode has a pretty good short answer about this.

A lot of AAA games are generally kind of samey and low-risk which is an issue, but there are a huge amount of other games that are quite different and unique. Indie games are getting better and better (although there is still a flood of 2D puzzle platformers).

As to Asian P2W, I think it's tied to those countries societies. Most people are too poor to even buy a video games console, only the rich can do it, and hey, if they are rich, they can pay to win. As simple as that. Plus most of the P2W are F2P. That's just another economic model, but it works in West too.

Click to expand...

While F2P games do make the majority of their money from 0.5-2% of the playerbase that are the heavy 'whales' who dump thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on the games, nickel and diming (hell I wish it was nickel and diming, usually costs a LOT more), there are a lot more reasons why they are so common in Asia and it isn't just the rich who play them.

A lot of it has to do with people not having the space for or being able to afford their own computer at home, so they go to cyber/gaming cafes which are a lot more developed in Asia than they are here. Its just become part of the cultural norm for gaming there. As such they do have a much more limited selection in games since they can only play whatever the cafe has installed on its computers.

If we should wait for players to ask games, we would have COD 1042 by the time, because players have no imagination.

Click to expand...

... we'll get plenty of more CoD games regardless.

Maniacal said:

That is exactly what I was saying... they will have to weigh the costs vs benefits. However, as I was pointing out, the game may face a lot of difficulties appealing to Western audiences. Even with a link to the Civ series and quite possibly because of that link largely because its design is completely different.

Click to expand...

No you were not really saying it... but whatever.

You misunderstand what I was saying. I wasn't talking about making them all the same, just that it is a fact that Korean/Asian MMORPGs are not hugely popular in the western markets and have a lot of hurdles they must overcome. It is not that it is trying something new that is problem, or that being different style is necessarily bad (although the unit designs in Civ Online are bizarre and do not appeal to most western audiences at all because they are completely alien and in some ways kind of bad), it is that big MMO publishers & devs like XL Games and Nexon only care about one thing: nickle and diming the players to death (sometimes literally).

Microtransactions influence the entire design of a game, and these Korean ones are generally completely designed around them. Unfortunately this influence is almost always for the worse, it means they will increase the amount of grind to encourage people to spend money to skip the grind, stuff like that.

Extra Credits has a pretty good episode about the cultural differences between the USA and Japan when it comes to games, specifically how they portray guns.

I am in no way supportive of making shallow, mass market games that appeal to the lowest common denominator. This definitely includes MMORPGs since that is generally what they are for and microtransactions are making this even worse.

Click to expand...

I was assuming that the "trend" you mentionned had people with no imagination as support, you included. When somebody puts in their hands something slightly different, they have a reaction of reject. Remember the welcoming of Zelda Wind Waker ? That's exactly what i'm saying. Whether it be linked to P2W or not is not the problem, your own general reaction in face of Civilization Online speaks for itself.

While yes Modern Military is the most popular setting for shooters since Call of Duty 4's run-away success, there are still tonnes of other games. Call of Duty also started out as a WW2 game, so did Battlefield, and progressing to a modern setting was a fairly natural and logical move to change things up (CoD4 also came out two years after Battlefield 2).

It also has absolutely nothing to do with Counter-Strike, I have no idea how you formed that connection. CS was originally a Half-Life 1 mod in the late 1990s, then released as its own game in 1999, CSS came out in 2004, and CS:Go came out in 2012. CS has its own unique style of FPS gameplay that is very different from Call of Duty and pretty much every other shooter. Its had the exact same setting the entire time. A lot of Counter-Strike's success is due to it being able to support a serious competitive scene, which is something its devs have kept in mind with the way they develop it. You don't get the same thing from Call of Duty with the way it is designed.

Click to expand...

Well I won"t argue with that, it's not the point. Just consider COD4 to have enlarged a market then. This is the games that create markets, not the contrary. Just because they have names which markets lack. (let aside the duality "hardcore gamers"/"casual players", but this one is a very damaging vision)

They know that very well, but there are lots of reasons why some AAA studios keep making shooters. Namely they are generally a bit easier and less risky than making something original. The beginning of this Extra Credits mailbag episode has a pretty good short answer about this.

A lot of AAA games are generally kind of samey and low-risk which is an issue, but there are a huge amount of other games that are quite different and unique. Indie games are getting better and better (although there is still a flood of 2D puzzle platformers).

Click to expand...

It's less risky because they know they will sell them, because they have a large audience. Remember how Command & Conquer/Starcraft opened the Pandora's Box ? It was kind of funny and pathetic in the same time.

While F2P games do make the majority of their money from 0.5-2% of the playerbase that are the heavy 'whales' who dump thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on the games, nickel and diming (hell I wish it was nickel and diming, usually costs a LOT more), there are a lot more reasons why they are so common in Asia and it isn't just the rich who play them.

A lot of it has to do with people not having the space for or being able to afford their own computer at home, so they go to cyber/gaming cafes which are a lot more developed in Asia than they are here. Its just become part of the cultural norm for gaming there. As such they do have a much more limited selection in games since they can only play whatever the cafe has installed on its computers.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much what i thought, it's a society phenomenon. So this has nothing to do with western trends.

... we'll get plenty of more CoD games regardless.

Click to expand...

Because players keep asking them !

I'm all for innovation in the gaming industry, but this Civ game basically seems like King Arthur's Gold-type gameplay in 3d, and then with the dreaded p2win funding.

But perhaps the game's just not for me.

Angst said:

I'm all for innovation in the gaming industry, but this Civ game basically seems like King Arthur's Gold-type gameplay in 3d, and then with the dreaded p2win funding.

But perhaps the game's just not for me.

Click to expand...

KAG had the benefit of actually being somewhat fast paced. This game reminds me more of A Tale of...something. i can't remember the name exactly, but it involved players working together and stuff like this, except that game looked good and this looks like another shameless cash grab like Civ-who-cares-because-it-is-dead.

Korean pay models are often time based instead of unlimited play for monthly sub too. I'm pretty sure for WoW they pay by the hour of game time not a monthly fee.

civvver said:

Korean pay models are often time based instead of unlimited play for monthly sub too. I'm pretty sure for WoW they pay by the hour of game time not a monthly fee.

Click to expand...

Korean PC Bun (Barns) are massive due to many koreans not having there own PCs and internet connection that is why they charge per hour for many games.