Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread [See new thread]

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Are you serious? Are you going to argue that games like WoW or EVE are not successful ? Compared to like, Evochron Mercenary? I bet you are one of those guys who have 3 free to play games on steam.

I can bet you all 600 games inc dlc's i own on steam inc games on origin,not one is f2p unless you count tf2 but i bought that a long time ago before it went f2p and since it went f2p i never play it.in-fact i hate it too many hackers.

[edit] Tbh I hate f2p with a passion.
Also not once did i say WoW or EVE are not successful.
 
Last edited:
The ability to switch modes on demand is what will kill the game in the long run. Single player games have WAY shorter lifespan than multiplayer ones.

Yea. People stopped playing Elite/Frontier in about 1996 and no one played any fan remakes and ports.

Sarcasm off.

It was the huge pent-up demand for this old single player game that is responsible for ED. I hazard a guess that a lot of people would swap this half-way house, neither fish nor fowl hybrid for a single player game as great as Frontier was in its time any day.

Other people are a poor substitute fro the richness of gameplay Frontier had as far as i'm concerned.

Edited to add:

ED won't be around in 10 years time anyway. Something much better will have taken its place, whether a Frontier product or someone else's.
 
Last edited:
Are you serious? Are you going to argue that games like WoW or EVE are not successful ? Compared to like, Evochron Mercenary? I bet you are one of those guys who have 3 free to play games on steam.

Skyrim sold 20 million + copies. Eve has 500,000 subs, a decent proportion of which are alts. People are still modding Morrowind a decade later. Not that any of this is really relevant, each game is different and making sweeping generalisations about what makes a game last gets us nowhere.
 
Let's put that to the test: Single player games that are still popular and still selling: Fallout series (started circa 1998); Baldur's Gate 1 and 2; Mass Effect; Dragon Age series (multiplayer in Inquisition is an afterthought); X-series; the Sims (all versions); Simcity (all versions); Elder Scrolls series...Do you really want me to go on? Face it, neither I nor anyone else want to play with the equivalent of the schoolyard meanies. Structured PvP is just fine with me. Open pvp areas where you know in advance what you're getting into and it's your choice to go there is fine. Being your practice target so that you can get your jollies going "Hee Hee Hee I gotcha! I gotcha!" is not and the day I am forced to play unwanted pvp is the day I say "Bye Bye" to this game.

I totally agree. Additionally some of those games survive very much longer because of modding functions. Unfortunately Frontier threw away this possibility by kicking the offline mode.
 
Last edited:
ED won't be around in 10 years time anyway. Something much better will have taken its place, whether a Frontier product or someone else's.

:eek: - I hope you haven't told DB! He's on record as saying there won't be an "Elite 5" - the plan is just to keep developing ED.

But I take your point about it possibly being overtaken by something else...

(I now have to go wash my hands having typed such heresy :D)
 
I totally agree. Additionally some of those games survive very much longer because of modding functions. Unfortunately Frontier threw away this possibility by kicking the offline mode.
Yeah, the modding communities for games like the Fallout series and Baldur's Gate series, not to mention Simcity 4 and the Elder Scrolls have often given these games new leases on life. You can't really mod a multiplayer game as easily because, well you have to be fair and be sure everyone's playing with the same setup which can run into complications.
 
I bounty hunt in solo - one day I'll be lucky to get 60k from sidewinders and cobras, the next day, at the same nav point I could get 350k as a string of wanted anacondas spawn.
 
Yeah, the modding communities for games like the Fallout series and Baldur's Gate series, not to mention Simcity 4 and the Elder Scrolls have often given these games new leases on life. You can't really mod a multiplayer game as easily because, well you have to be fair and be sure everyone's playing with the same setup which can run into complications.

Multiplayer isn't the problem; ask the Neverwinter Nights modding community. Heck, they built MMOs out of a local multiplayer game.

The issue is with always online games, with their dependency on a central server, obfuscation used to prevent players from figuring how it works and creating a substitute server, and draconian EULAs and TOS. There is a reason I wanted the offline ED that was previously promised, and that I consider the current online-only iteration to be less interesting or engaging than OOLite.

And it's the reason I'm planning to completely abandon ED as soon as modding-friendly, private-server-included SC is release, and likely never look back.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Let's put that to the test: Single player games that are still popular and still selling: Fallout series (started circa 1998); Baldur's Gate 1 and 2; Mass Effect; Dragon Age series (multiplayer in Inquisition is an afterthought); X-series; the Sims (all versions); Simcity (all versions); Elder Scrolls series...Do you really want me to go on? Face it, neither I nor anyone else want to play with the equivalent of the schoolyard meanies. Structured PvP is just fine with me. Open pvp areas where you know in advance what you're getting into and it's your choice to go there is fine. Being your practice target so that you can get your jollies going "Hee Hee Hee I gotcha! I gotcha!" is not and the day I am forced to play unwanted pvp is the day I say "Bye Bye" to this game.

Oh, right. Baldur's Gate not only had new versions of both games released recently — including extra features, patches, extra content, all atop the old engine. And the same company is bringing a new chapter to the story, using the same engine as the previous games.

Star Craft kept releasing updates for over a decade, as did Diablo 2; Blizzard is in for the long game. Heck, the original decade old Star Craft was still used in high profile tournaments even after Star Craft 2 was released.

Half Life 2 is another game that still has a strong following, and still sees patches and improvements. Of course, the fact Valve backports Source Engine improvements to old games that use it helps.

And I bet I can find other games that are still being played, and developed, either by devs or by modders, a decade after launch.

Meanwhile, most MMOs actually close before a decade, and when they don't it's not uncommon for them to be put into maintenance mode, without upgrades. There are exceptions, of course, but far more MMOs close down than keep open.
 
Skyrim sold 20 million + copies. Eve has 500,000 subs, a decent proportion of which are alts. People are still modding Morrowind a decade later. Not that any of this is really relevant, each game is different and making sweeping generalisations about what makes a game last gets us nowhere.

500,000 subs that have been paying circa 15 USD per month for the past 12 years. People come and go but the game was a STELLAR success and its the benchmark, like it or not. Do the math.
 
Even though I agree with your generalization....Flight simulator X would be 10 years old next year.

I think the point you are trying to make is the dynamic environment that human competition creates is far more energizing and replayable than computer generated content currently.

Yes, that is pretty much the point I'm trying to make.
 
500,000 subs that have been paying circa 15 USD per month for the past 12 years. People come and go but the game was a STELLAR success and its the benchmark, like it or not. Do the math.

I could embark on a long, rambling post about ongoing costs of development and servers, etc, but I won't. Because we'd all get bored, and it'd still prove nothing. My point was that glibly saying what worked for another game with a completely different business model and development cycle must work for ED makes no sense.
 
Hey Frey,

Thank you for the link!
I've read it, but as some mentioned before he only portrayed his personal experience during a 20minute run.
It would surprise me that there would be a difference between Solo & Open for these kind of things, but maybe it warrants some more testing.

I do think it's fair to assume right now, that it can be blaimed on the randomness, and that there is no difference for it between Open & Solo.
 
To be fair, it's a sizeable minority. David Vonderhaar, the lead guy from treyarch says that between 30 and 40 percent of players never venture into multiplayer. Outnumbered for sure, but too many to write off.

30 to 40 percent never venture into multiplayer. Now, how many more give it a look and abandon it before long? How many players stay there for a few matches, a day, a week, and then leave never to return? EVE has half the players that actually purchased the game (i.e., those not on trial) give up and leave, never to return, before the first month is over; what if this applies to the multiplayer mode in games that have both solo and multiplayer?

The industry loves multiplayer; it's the most cost-effective way to create replay value, as long as players engage in it. And devs have been trying to get players into multiplayer for a long time. CoD's change to allow some of the experience obtained in training mode to transfer to online, for example, is an attempt to make players feel like they have something invested in multiplayer before they get there, a desperate attempt to get more players to at least try it.

That push doesn't always work. Take Watch Dogs, for example; that game combined exclusive bonuses for playing in multiplayer with penalties for playing offline and consequences for defeat in an attempt to make players engage each other, similar to how Dark Souls did. The result? Well, if you think ED players pull the plug too often, you never played Watch Dogs close to launch. The plug pulling situation only got somewhat under control after Ubisoft removed all consequences for defeat in multiplayer — though now, of course, most players don't even bother to play the invasions, making it basically a single player grind for the invading player.

BTW, players that favor social contact, either competitive or cooperative, tend to be far more active in the forums. Finding numbers about this is unfortunately rare, but at least some info leaks; LotRO, for example, has less than 10% of its players engaged in either PvP or raiding, but they make for over half the forum posters.
 

cyd

Banned
I could embark on a long, rambling post about ongoing costs of development and servers, etc, but I won't. Because we'd all get bored, and it'd still prove nothing. My point was that glibly saying what worked for another game with a completely different business model and development cycle must work for ED makes no sense.

Well, ED is selling an experience. Many customers of ED are unhappy with that experience. If ED wants to keep those customers, it will fix pvp and actually have grouping mechanics like a normal game developed after the advent of the internet. Since no real competitor is out, ED is free to sit on its hands and let people be unhappy. When SC or No mans sky or the next eve comes out that fills that niche better than ED could have, then we will all be happier people although ED will certainly be a much smaller place.
I don't think we need to generalize anymore than that.
 
As a long time player of other space simulators such as Jumpgate, I can honestly say that since playing ED I'm very disappointed in the fact that you can talk to others very little in the game and find myself wondering why I even bother playing the Multiplayer side. I like establishing community, building friendships and alliances in games like these. If you look into my past you'll see that in Jumpgate I built one of the strongest Pirate factions in Jumpgate called EEA and made the game exciting for others to play and that was all done with communication which this game has very little. The Devs really need to work on this.
 
Well, ED is selling an experience. Many customers of ED are unhappy with that experience. If ED wants to keep those customers, it will fix pvp and actually have grouping mechanics like a normal game developed after the advent of the internet. Since no real competitor is out, ED is free to sit on its hands and let people be unhappy. When SC or No mans sky or the next eve comes out that fills that niche better than ED could have, then we will all be happier people although ED will certainly be a much smaller place.
I don't think we need to generalize anymore than that.

Yep, wings, grouping, comms, tons of work to do. Never once claimed there wasn't. We'll have to see what effect 1.1 and 1.2 have before we get to see what shape the multiplayer side of things is going to be in. Where did you get from that post that I thought everything was fine and dandy?
 
500,000 subs that have been paying circa 15 USD per month for the past 12 years. People come and go but the game was a STELLAR success and its the benchmark, like it or not. Do the math.

Actually:

- EVE had a slow start; it took two years to pass 50K players. The average across its lifetime is likely in the 200K-250K players. Yeah, still impressive, but quite less than the 500K x 12Y mentioned.

- Not everyone pays $15. The sub where I live is a bit below $10 when paying per month, and about $7 per month when paying for a whole year (though PLEX is sold at US prices). I believe prices in China — which seems to contribute with at least a third of the subscribers — are likely even lower.

- CCP has not released subscriber numbers since the 500K subscribers peak early in 2013, AFAIK. And the number of concurrent players has been falling since then. My guess is that EVE is losing subscribers for the last two years, and this is why they stopped posting subscriber numbers.

- EVE online is for the FFA PvP MMOs with looting the same that WoW is for the rest of the MMO market; an impossible standard to reach, where every game that attempted to mimic its success fell far short of the mark. I'm not sure its success can ever be repeated, the same way I'm not sure WoW's success can be repeated.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom