EQ Never

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
tower

tower

Golden Knight of the Realm
381
158
tad10_sl said:
You can make a game that will get 200-400K subs and be profitable for a long, long time.
You can make a game that will get 2million-10million subs and be profitable for a long, long time.

You are company whose philosophy is to make a lot of games, even multiple copies of games with the same name but...
You can only make one game at a time.

Which game do you make first? And which game do you make second?
Click to expand...
Who the fuck has those options? Blizzard, maybe, probably not any more?

This is going to sell a million copies in the first three months and have no one sane still playing it by the sixth, just like everything else that has come out in the last 5 years.

The only people who will stick around are the slaves they will have making the game for them in Landmark.
 
W

Wuyley_sl

shitlord
1,443
13
All of you on here that are telling the devs to "grow a pair" and "make a HARD game like EQ1 and forget about the profitability" aren't the ones who are putting millions and millions of dollars down on a game after the sheer volume of MMOs have gone to shit / lost a lot of money (WAR, TOR, etc.)

It's time to shave those neck beards and realize that in the real world, it's all about the $.
 
D

dogbarf_sl

shitlord
28
0
Maybe the Dark Soul Devs will make a MMO. Darksouls was a decent modern example that people still like old school rpg mechanics.
 
tad10

tad10

Elisha Dushku
5,533
595
I like how I now get Disney and Minecraft ads on the rerolled banner since the EQNext reveal. Lol.
 
Borzak

Borzak

Bronze Baron of the Realm
25,443
33,205
Sounds like a steaming pile of siht with a lot of user created penis shaped content.
 
Erronius

Erronius

<WoW Guild Officer>
<Gold Donor>
17,229
44,563
I do have to say Tad10 that my mind is a little blown. I remember back on FOH you staunchly defending so many of the facets of EQ1 gameplay that when I see you leading the charge for EQ:N it seems a bit bizarre. I'm not sure if it's just attributable to changes in taste over time or if you've simply picked a new horse to back, but it's a hell of a change of pace from the Tad10 that used to homer EQ1, especially when the 38S threads were active.

tad10_sl said:
Those who want something entirely new and different (i.e. someone like me and I think a few others on this board) might be quite happy with the reveal. I think feelings about the EQN theme music separate the first from the second.
Click to expand...
If someone had told me back then that you'd be supportive of a sandboxy, no camping, no levels EQ that steps far away from EQ3 and whose early art direction looks similar to art from the other MMOs that the diehard EQ1 fans have hated for years, I'd have told them that they were batshit insane.
 
tower

tower

Golden Knight of the Realm
381
158
To the general public the Everquest name is stigmatized. It's better than being called "Norrath Online" sure but it's about a thousand times worse than "League of Legends the MMO" which is what they appear to be shooting for now (you know, after their marketing department informed them that GW2 was no longer cool so they needed a new "not WoW" to pattern themselves after). WoW needed Chuck Norris and Night Elf Mohawks for mass market penetration. Everquest is the game that neckbeard roommate of the guy Jimmy's Mom used to bang in college played. Jimmy's Mom doesn't want Jimmy to be that roommate. The genre in general hasn't made many strides since, either - I would actually argue it's worse now that a lot of people have tried them and are jaded from it.

This thing has a cap, and it's much lower than 10 million. Even if they deliver on every bullshit political promise made so far they won't reach that. There are a lot of people who played WoW that won't ever come back to MMOs.

Landmark will be a bigger success than EQN.
 
tad10

tad10

Elisha Dushku
5,533
595
Erronius_sl said:
I do have to say Tad10 that my mind is a little blown.
Click to expand...
How are you doing Erronius old chum? You're forgetting that I prefer EQN with EQ/VG classes/combat (i.e. EQ3) which sadly isn't on anybody's horizon.

@tower eh we will see, you may be right about landmark being bigger.

@spronk

rrr_img_39382.jpg
 
Rope

Rope

Silver Knight of the Realm
527
101
I just want to say that anyone who thinks the sub is out of the picture and the f2p shit is the new thing? Holy shit you guys are fucking retarded.
 
W

Wuyley_sl

shitlord
1,443
13
Rope_sl said:
I just want to say that anyone who thinks the sub is out of the picture and the f2p shit is the new thing? Holy shit you guys are fucking retarded.
Click to expand...
If that is the case, someone didn't tell all the MMOS that released in the last couple of years that are now going F2P. (rolls eyes)
 
Erronius

Erronius

<WoW Guild Officer>
<Gold Donor>
17,229
44,563
xzi_sl said:
5x1bfZ5.png
Click to expand...
Check out the EQ2 page while you're at it, it says more or less the same thing and they have both F2P and sub.http://www.everquest2.com/

People used to argue sub versus F2P as if they're mutually exclusive, but they aren't. If a studio can get away with offering both (such as SOE does, under the illusion of choice) then they probably will, particularly from here on out. And I imagine that there is a very good chance that EQ:N might have a similar F2P+sub system as to what they have in EQ2. On paper I don't have an issue with them doing it, but in reality SOE really did a poor job with it in EQ2. The F2P "levels" were atrocious and it wasn't designed with playing F2P long-term. I really think that they saw F2P as nothing more than a hook to get tons of froobs to try it, and then (hopefully) when they got hooked, they'd either sub or pay through the nose for stuff from the store.

I suppose it's possible that they could go completely F2P with no subs whatsoever, but I'd be shocked if that were the case.

I also see that they changed the EQ2 access tiers again:https://www.everquest2.com/free
 
Cinge

Cinge

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
7,277
2,302
I expect the same system PS2 uses. F2P with a "founder" package + optional sub if you want it.

Their F2P was good though, no restrictions or anything, people who paid just got shit faster.
 
xzi

xzi

Mouthbreather
7,526
6,763
Erronius_sl said:
Check out the EQ2 page while you're at it, it says more or less the same thing and they have both F2P and sub.http://www.everquest2.com/

People used to argue sub versus F2P as if they're mutually exclusive, but they aren't. If a studio can get away with offering both (such as SOE does, under the illusion of choice) then they probably will, particularly from here on out. And I imagine that there is a very good chance that EQ:N might have a similar F2P+sub system as to what they have in EQ2. On paper I don't have an issue with them doing it, but in reality SOE really did a poor job with it in EQ2. The F2P "levels" were atrocious and it wasn't designed with playing F2P long-term. I really think that they saw F2P as nothing more than a hook to get tons of froobs to try it, and then (hopefully) when they got hooked, they'd either sub or pay through the nose for stuff from the store.

I suppose it's possible that they could go completely F2P with no subs whatsoever, but I'd be shocked if that were the case.

I also see that they changed the EQ2 access tiers again:https://www.everquest2.com/free
Click to expand...
Oh, I know. But he's completely denouncing the idea that they would go F2P which is why I posted that. They'll definitely have subs. If they do it like they did in PS2 then I'm totally 100% fine with it. EQ2 Subs from what I played was a pretty big joke to me. If they pull a "Hey there's 40 classes but you can only play 12 of them" then lol. But I doubt it. I have faith they won't fuck up their payment methods but who knows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.