What does that have to do with anything? Whether I would want a game to die or not doesn't change the fact that SOE put Vanguard on maintenance mode barely a year after its release. They were down to a single developer working on bugs for quite a few years and have only recently started investing into the game again, yet it is a slow go even now.
Was that LA employee privy to the upper management decisions at SOE? These companies are not idiots, they do go into IP contracts with the intent on protecting their own interests and if you think for one moment that a very large and very powerful company like Sony is going to let LA push them around without some kind of contingencies, then you are clueless. License holders have a lot of power, but so do the companies using said IPs. The only explanation for SOE going down the Cu / NGE road is that they agreed with LA that the changes would be in the best interests of the stock holders. They made a gamble that failed and Smedley was unwilling to own up to their share of the blame.
You are extremely* confused on how licensing works for video games. Liscensors have a ton of power in how their product is used and legal documents can only go so far.
LA had a huge amount of influence on SWG. There is no doubt about that, and NGE was pushed from LA.
You have a forum full of people who have never worked in the business or dealt with 3rd party IP Development assuming they know it all.
Smed said a few years ago working with a 3rd party IP is a bad idea.
Quote from him.
"It’s often frustrating to work with third party IP. There’s a constant battle over what the right direction is for the game, and from our own recent experience, it’s not something we enjoy. It very often puts handcuffs on what we can and can’t do and, frankly speaking, it’s a lot harder to make great games when the IP holders don’t understand the online gaming market."
Sounds like to me the IP holder actually had direct influence on the games design.
What does that have to do with anything? Whether I would want a game to die or not doesn't change the fact that SOE put Vanguard on maintenance mode barely a year after its release. They were down to a single developer working on bugs for quite a few years and have only recently started investing into the game again, yet it is a slow go even now.
Was that LA employee privy to the upper management decisions at SOE? These companies are not idiots, they do go into IP contracts with the intent on protecting their own interests and if you think for one moment that a very large and very powerful company like Sony is going to let LA push them around without some kind of contingencies, then you are clueless. License holders have a lot of power, but so do the companies using said IPs. The only explanation for SOE going down the Cu / NGE road is that they agreed with LA that the changes would be in the best interests of the stock holders. They made a gamble that failed and Smedley was unwilling to own up to their share of the blame.
You are extremely* confused on how licensing works for video games. Liscensors have a ton of power in how their product is used and legal documents can only go so far.
LA had a huge amount of influence on SWG. There is no doubt about that, and NGE was pushed from LA.
Read the second paragraph again carefully before you insert foot into mouth.
Originally posted by ReallyNow10 OP, it's not hype this time. I think EQ Next is very real, and the blog and online editors who have glimpsed it, say it's a game-changer. Took E3. By a large margin, from what I've heard.
EQN wasn't at E3. They are demoing at SOE Live for the first time. That happens in about 1 month.
Press got a behind the scenes viewing at E3 , who then subsequently awarded it best of E3.
Well that's news to me.
Glad to hear it though. I can't wait to see it for myself next month.
Just looked it up. Sounds great.
Just look at the E3 coverage from this site and Ten Ton Hammer. Both voted EQN 'best of show'. Seems a bit shrillish to me personally. But I guess we will find out in August.
Not so many years ago SOE, at John Smedley's direction, gutted and ruined SWG, basically causing a legendary mass exodus from the game.
A few years later, SOE aquires Sigil games and forces the premature release of Vanguard, which was regarded by many to be one of the worst launches of any major MMO.
At the time of Vanguard's release (arguably the first iteration of EQN), Smedley promised long term support and upcoming expansion packs. We all know how that went.
So how is it that everyone is suddenly so confident that EQN will be such a great game? Do the words "Everquest" and "sandbox" mentioned in the same sentence suddenly activate a chemical in the brain that causes selective amnesia?
Yes Smed is often full of crap, but you could at least get your facts right. SoE published Vanguard, but Brad McQuaid and Vigil were the ones responsible for it. By the time that SoE acquired the rights for it, the game was already well past launch.
Smed never promised long term support or expansion packs for it. SoE purchased a dud, it didn't perform well and was never going to make them any significant cash, so why would they support it financially?
SoE isn't a charity. At work I don't go around wasting my time and effort on things that don't make me money, why would they?
You would think that most companies in the same position would close down a game they barely support with a few bug fixes over the years, let alone all of the content that any other MMO would have implemented over that time period. I find your attitude toward such a bad business practice to be rather disturbing and perhaps representative of the gamer population's penchant to support crappy games due to their addiction.
I find your attitude of "No support would have been better than some support" to be rather disturbing and childish. People were playing and enjoying the game. People still play it today. Every single one of them would think your opinion is bordering on retardation.
In response to those who continue to believe that my statements regarding the NGE are inaccurate and that Smedley / SOE were not responsible can refer to the link below where Smedley takes full responsibility for the CU and NGE, never once suggesting that LA was involved.
President of Sony Online Entertainment John Smedley has apologised for decisions made on the direction of Star Wars Galaxies, describing then as "stupid" and a "complete and utter fail".
Smedley defended the decision at the time, citing the need to revamp the game in order to stem the loss of subscribers the game was suffering. Instead, however, the updates sparked in-game demonstrations and further player exoduses. Sony subsequently offered refunds to players who bought the Trials Of Obi-Wan expansion as it was released two days prior to the implementation of NGE.
"Stupid decisions," Smedley wrote in response to a question from a user, "Complete and utter fail and I am very sorry."
I like how you completely ignored the post i made earlier. Obvioisly since you want to put all blame on SOE you won't even bother to reply and ignore it again but still here it is...
Nancy MacIntyre, the game's senior director at LucasArts, responded to the changes in the game and the angry objections by disgruntled players. I quote her remarks from the article at length, since, um, you have to see them to believe them.
Ms. MacIntyre: "We really just needed to make the game a lot more accessible to a much broader player base ... There was lots of reading, much too much, in the game. There was a lot of wandering around learning about different abilities. We really needed to give people the experience of being Han Solo or Luke Skywalker rather than being Uncle Owen, the moisture farmer. We wanted more instant gratification: kill, get treasure, repeat. We needed to give people more of an option to be part of what they have seen in the movies rather than something they had created themselves."
The is all the proof anyone need to see it was LA calling shots not SOE. And you can not just simply say no to LA.
Sorry man was AFK for bit and didn't see it. So far, I've cited wikipedia entries, an SOE dev blog, and an article where Smedley clearly takes full responsibility for the CU and NGE, yet somehow none of that is valid to you.
What does that have to do with anything? Whether I would want a game to die or not doesn't change the fact that SOE put Vanguard on maintenance mode barely a year after its release. They were down to a single developer working on bugs for quite a few years and have only recently started investing into the game again, yet it is a slow go even now.
Was that LA employee privy to the upper management decisions at SOE? These companies are not idiots, they do go into IP contracts with the intent on protecting their own interests and if you think for one moment that a very large and very powerful company like Sony is going to let LA push them around without some kind of contingencies, then you are clueless. License holders have a lot of power, but so do the companies using said IPs. The only explanation for SOE going down the Cu / NGE road is that they agreed with LA that the changes would be in the best interests of the stock holders. They made a gamble that failed and Smedley was unwilling to own up to their share of the blame.
You are extremely* confused on how licensing works for video games. Liscensors have a ton of power in how their product is used and legal documents can only go so far.
LA had a huge amount of influence on SWG. There is no doubt about that, and NGE was pushed from LA.
You have a forum full of people who have never worked in the business or dealt with 3rd party IP Development assuming they know it all.
Smed said a few years ago working with a 3rd party IP is a bad idea.
Quote from him.
"It’s often frustrating to work with third party IP. There’s a constant battle over what the right direction is for the game, and from our own recent experience, it’s not something we enjoy. It very often puts handcuffs on what we can and can’t do and, frankly speaking, it’s a lot harder to make great games when the IP holders don’t understand the online gaming market."
Does that somehow invalidate any culpability of the licensee?
What does that have to do with anything? Whether I would want a game to die or not doesn't change the fact that SOE put Vanguard on maintenance mode barely a year after its release. They were down to a single developer working on bugs for quite a few years and have only recently started investing into the game again, yet it is a slow go even now.
Was that LA employee privy to the upper management decisions at SOE? These companies are not idiots, they do go into IP contracts with the intent on protecting their own interests and if you think for one moment that a very large and very powerful company like Sony is going to let LA push them around without some kind of contingencies, then you are clueless. License holders have a lot of power, but so do the companies using said IPs. The only explanation for SOE going down the Cu / NGE road is that they agreed with LA that the changes would be in the best interests of the stock holders. They made a gamble that failed and Smedley was unwilling to own up to their share of the blame.
You are extremely* confused on how licensing works for video games. Liscensors have a ton of power in how their product is used and legal documents can only go so far.
LA had a huge amount of influence on SWG. There is no doubt about that, and NGE was pushed from LA.
Read the second paragraph again carefully before you insert foot into mouth.
Just look at the E3 coverage from this site and Ten Ton Hammer. Both voted EQN 'best of show'. Seems a bit shrillish to me personally. But I guess we will find out in August.
i agree EQN shouldnt have won any awards beyond -- best "press only" demo
In response to those who continue to believe that my statements regarding the NGE are inaccurate and that Smedley / SOE were not responsible can refer to the link below where Smedley takes full responsibility for the CU and NGE, never once suggesting that LA was involved.
President of Sony Online Entertainment John Smedley has apologised for decisions made on the direction of Star Wars Galaxies, describing then as "stupid" and a "complete and utter fail".
Smedley defended the decision at the time, citing the need to revamp the game in order to stem the loss of subscribers the game was suffering. Instead, however, the updates sparked in-game demonstrations and further player exoduses. Sony subsequently offered refunds to players who bought the Trials Of Obi-Wan expansion as it was released two days prior to the implementation of NGE.
"Stupid decisions," Smedley wrote in response to a question from a user, "Complete and utter fail and I am very sorry."
I like how you completely ignored the post i made earlier. Obvioisly since you want to put all blame on SOE you won't even bother to reply and ignore it again but still here it is...
Nancy MacIntyre, the game's senior director at LucasArts, responded to the changes in the game and the angry objections by disgruntled players. I quote her remarks from the article at length, since, um, you have to see them to believe them.
Ms. MacIntyre: "We really just needed to make the game a lot more accessible to a much broader player base ... There was lots of reading, much too much, in the game. There was a lot of wandering around learning about different abilities. We really needed to give people the experience of being Han Solo or Luke Skywalker rather than being Uncle Owen, the moisture farmer. We wanted more instant gratification: kill, get treasure, repeat. We needed to give people more of an option to be part of what they have seen in the movies rather than something they had created themselves."
The is all the proof anyone need to see it was LA calling shots not SOE. And you can not just simply say no to LA.
Sorry man was AFK for bit and didn't see it. So far, I've cited wikipedia entries, an SOE dev blog, and an article where Smedley clearly takes full responsibility for the CU and NGE, yet somehow none of that is valid to you.
Because you ignore the fact that a Senior Game Director at Lucas Arts admits to the NGE.
How about you just admit it. LA wanted the NGE. SOE agreed with that decision they're at fault, but it is not all on them. Smed took responsibility for it while LA did nothing yet were involved directly with its development.
What does that have to do with anything? Whether I would want a game to die or not doesn't change the fact that SOE put Vanguard on maintenance mode barely a year after its release. They were down to a single developer working on bugs for quite a few years and have only recently started investing into the game again, yet it is a slow go even now.
Was that LA employee privy to the upper management decisions at SOE? These companies are not idiots, they do go into IP contracts with the intent on protecting their own interests and if you think for one moment that a very large and very powerful company like Sony is going to let LA push them around without some kind of contingencies, then you are clueless. License holders have a lot of power, but so do the companies using said IPs. The only explanation for SOE going down the Cu / NGE road is that they agreed with LA that the changes would be in the best interests of the stock holders. They made a gamble that failed and Smedley was unwilling to own up to their share of the blame.
You are extremely* confused on how licensing works for video games. Liscensors have a ton of power in how their product is used and legal documents can only go so far.
LA had a huge amount of influence on SWG. There is no doubt about that, and NGE was pushed from LA.
You have a forum full of people who have never worked in the business or dealt with 3rd party IP Development assuming they know it all.
Smed said a few years ago working with a 3rd party IP is a bad idea.
Quote from him.
"It’s often frustrating to work with third party IP. There’s a constant battle over what the right direction is for the game, and from our own recent experience, it’s not something we enjoy. It very often puts handcuffs on what we can and can’t do and, frankly speaking, it’s a lot harder to make great games when the IP holders don’t understand the online gaming market."
Does that somehow invalidate any culpability of the licensee?
Yes it does. If a licenser says do something or we pull our licence from your product, you do what they say. It ties the developer's hands. Again you have no idea how the industry works, not even on a small level.
In response to those who continue to believe that my statements regarding the NGE are inaccurate and that Smedley / SOE were not responsible can refer to the link below where Smedley takes full responsibility for the CU and NGE, never once suggesting that LA was involved.
President of Sony Online Entertainment John Smedley has apologised for decisions made on the direction of Star Wars Galaxies, describing then as "stupid" and a "complete and utter fail".
Smedley defended the decision at the time, citing the need to revamp the game in order to stem the loss of subscribers the game was suffering. Instead, however, the updates sparked in-game demonstrations and further player exoduses. Sony subsequently offered refunds to players who bought the Trials Of Obi-Wan expansion as it was released two days prior to the implementation of NGE.
"Stupid decisions," Smedley wrote in response to a question from a user, "Complete and utter fail and I am very sorry."
I like how you completely ignored the post i made earlier. Obvioisly since you want to put all blame on SOE you won't even bother to reply and ignore it again but still here it is...
Nancy MacIntyre, the game's senior director at LucasArts, responded to the changes in the game and the angry objections by disgruntled players. I quote her remarks from the article at length, since, um, you have to see them to believe them.
Ms. MacIntyre: "We really just needed to make the game a lot more accessible to a much broader player base ... There was lots of reading, much too much, in the game. There was a lot of wandering around learning about different abilities. We really needed to give people the experience of being Han Solo or Luke Skywalker rather than being Uncle Owen, the moisture farmer. We wanted more instant gratification: kill, get treasure, repeat. We needed to give people more of an option to be part of what they have seen in the movies rather than something they had created themselves."
The is all the proof anyone need to see it was LA calling shots not SOE. And you can not just simply say no to LA.
Sorry man was AFK for bit and didn't see it. So far, I've cited wikipedia entries, an SOE dev blog, and an article where Smedley clearly takes full responsibility for the CU and NGE, yet somehow none of that is valid to you.
Did i say it is not valid to me? but your original premises is that 'it was all fault of SOE'. Even though people have been quoting articles straight from the horses mouth. Yes SOE was at fault for doing what LA told them to do but how can you say no to LA who hold the rights to the IP and had a great influence over it? tell me.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.' -Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid." -Luke McKinney
SOE had nothing to do with Vanguard. The company ran out of money and Microsoft bailed SOE came in and saved the game period there would be NO Vanguard today if SOE did not take the risk. Vanguard was a disaster from the start the game engine is horrible and was never optimized. The game was in beta for 2 years another 6 months would not of mattered.
Take off your blinders and go play Vanguard today easily a way better game that would not exist today had SOE not stepped in.
To me soe is the best mmo game maker out there. Just look at the games they have made EQ,EQ2 ,SWG,plantside 2,free realm and they have done great work with vanguard. I have played all these games and still play eq and vanguard and although they aren't the game they were they changed them because players wanted the easy style like WoW. If anything they are at fault of listening to the player base and trying to give them the game that is popular ATM.
I am 100% sure that EQN will be a great game and i for one cant wait for it to be released.
Not so many years ago SOE, at John Smedley's direction, gutted and ruined SWG, basically causing a legendary mass exodus from the game.
A few years later, SOE aquires Sigil games and forces the premature release of Vanguard, which was regarded by many to be one of the worst launches of any major MMO.
At the time of Vanguard's release (arguably the first iteration of EQN), Smedley promised long term support and upcoming expansion packs. We all know how that went.
So how is it that everyone is suddenly so confident that EQN will be such a great game? Do the words "Everquest" and "sandbox" mentioned in the same sentence suddenly activate a chemical in the brain that causes selective amnesia?
Yes Smed is often full of crap, but you could at least get your facts right. SoE published Vanguard, but Brad McQuaid and Vigil were the ones responsible for it. By the time that SoE acquired the rights for it, the game was already well past launch.
Smed never promised long term support or expansion packs for it. SoE purchased a dud, it didn't perform well and was never going to make them any significant cash, so why would they support it financially?
SoE isn't a charity. At work I don't go around wasting my time and effort on things that don't make me money, why would they?
You would think that most companies in the same position would close down a game they barely support with a few bug fixes over the years, let alone all of the content that any other MMO would have implemented over that time period. I find your attitude toward such a bad business practice to be rather disturbing and perhaps representative of the gamer population's penchant to support crappy games due to their addiction.
I find your attitude of "No support would have been better than some support" to be rather disturbing and childish. People were playing and enjoying the game. People still play it today. Every single one of them would think your opinion is bordering on retardation.
Call me names all you want, I'm sure a mod will be along shortly. This does not change the fact that SOE is still responsible for a MMO that is not being competitive in the market in regards to updates and patches and expansions. You can see that this is unfair to anyone who pays for the game in that they are not getting their money's worth in comparison to other MMOs that are updating regularly. Just because there are some gamers who are willing to put up with such irresponsibility doesn't invalidate the principle of the matter.
What does that have to do with anything? Whether I would want a game to die or not doesn't change the fact that SOE put Vanguard on maintenance mode barely a year after its release. They were down to a single developer working on bugs for quite a few years and have only recently started investing into the game again, yet it is a slow go even now.
Was that LA employee privy to the upper management decisions at SOE? These companies are not idiots, they do go into IP contracts with the intent on protecting their own interests and if you think for one moment that a very large and very powerful company like Sony is going to let LA push them around without some kind of contingencies, then you are clueless. License holders have a lot of power, but so do the companies using said IPs. The only explanation for SOE going down the Cu / NGE road is that they agreed with LA that the changes would be in the best interests of the stock holders. They made a gamble that failed and Smedley was unwilling to own up to their share of the blame.
You are extremely* confused on how licensing works for video games. Liscensors have a ton of power in how their product is used and legal documents can only go so far.
LA had a huge amount of influence on SWG. There is no doubt about that, and NGE was pushed from LA.
You have a forum full of people who have never worked in the business or dealt with 3rd party IP Development assuming they know it all.
Smed said a few years ago working with a 3rd party IP is a bad idea.
Quote from him.
"It’s often frustrating to work with third party IP. There’s a constant battle over what the right direction is for the game, and from our own recent experience, it’s not something we enjoy. It very often puts handcuffs on what we can and can’t do and, frankly speaking, it’s a lot harder to make great games when the IP holders don’t understand the online gaming market."
Does that somehow invalidate any culpability of the licensee?
Yes it does. If a licenser says do something or we pull our licence from your product, you do what they say. It ties the developer's hands. Again you have no idea how the industry works, not even on a small level.
No it doesn't. SWG eventually closed for no better reason than they would have had by disputing or even refusing to comply. Not only would it have been the fiscally responsible thing to do. They are after all doing this for the money. It would have also been the ethical thing to do for their player base. Instead, they behaved irresponsibly and suffered the consequences in the form of player lash-back.
Call me names all you want, I'm sure a mod will be along shortly. This does not change the fact that SOE is still responsible for a MMO that is not being competitive in the market in regards to updates and patches and expansions. You can see that this is unfair to anyone who pays for the game in that they are not getting their money's worth in comparison to other MMOs that are updating regularly. Just because there are some gamers who are willing to put up with such irresponsibility doesn't invalidate the principle of the matter.
I agree with him. Your point of view is really a bit crazy. Close down the game which is still being played by thousands of players. what kind of idiotic decision is that and who in their right mind would do that? if they are making enough money and still generating profit to keep things going then that is all that matters.
You think companies like to dump money into non profitable projects out of their own pockets?
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.' -Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid." -Luke McKinney
Not so many years ago SOE, at John Smedley's direction, gutted and ruined SWG, basically causing a legendary mass exodus from the game.
A few years later, SOE aquires Sigil games and forces the premature release of Vanguard, which was regarded by many to be one of the worst launches of any major MMO.
At the time of Vanguard's release (arguably the first iteration of EQN), Smedley promised long term support and upcoming expansion packs. We all know how that went.
So how is it that everyone is suddenly so confident that EQN will be such a great game? Do the words "Everquest" and "sandbox" mentioned in the same sentence suddenly activate a chemical in the brain that causes selective amnesia?
Yes Smed is often full of crap, but you could at least get your facts right. SoE published Vanguard, but Brad McQuaid and Vigil were the ones responsible for it. By the time that SoE acquired the rights for it, the game was already well past launch.
Smed never promised long term support or expansion packs for it. SoE purchased a dud, it didn't perform well and was never going to make them any significant cash, so why would they support it financially?
SoE isn't a charity. At work I don't go around wasting my time and effort on things that don't make me money, why would they?
You would think that most companies in the same position would close down a game they barely support with a few bug fixes over the years, let alone all of the content that any other MMO would have implemented over that time period. I find your attitude toward such a bad business practice to be rather disturbing and perhaps representative of the gamer population's penchant to support crappy games due to their addiction.
I find your attitude of "No support would have been better than some support" to be rather disturbing and childish. People were playing and enjoying the game. People still play it today. Every single one of them would think your opinion is bordering on retardation.
Call me names all you want, I'm sure a mod will be along shortly. This does not change the fact that SOE is still responsible for a MMO that is not being competitive in the market in regards to updates and patches and expansions. You can see that this is unfair to anyone who pays for the game in that they are not getting their money's worth in comparison to other MMOs that are updating regularly. Just because there are some gamers who are willing to put up with such irresponsibility doesn't invalidate the principle of the matter.
Clearly you don't understand. Supporting a game is always a good thing for the player. If anything SOE was taking a bullet for the fans by taking the game on. Yes the support for it was limited, but that's because the game wasn't a financial success. The fact that they even went through the trouble of continuing to keep the game alive is a testament to their dedication to their fans.
I don't need to call you names. Your attitude speaks for itself.
I find your attitude of "No support would have been better than some support" to be rather disturbing and childish. People were playing and enjoying the game. People still play it today. Every single one of them would think your opinion is bordering on retardation.
Call me names all you want, I'm sure a mod will be along shortly. This does not change the fact that SOE is still responsible for a MMO that is not being competitive in the market in regards to updates and patches and expansions. You can see that this is unfair to anyone who pays for the game in that they are not getting their money's worth in comparison to other MMOs that are updating regularly. Just because there are some gamers who are willing to put up with such irresponsibility doesn't invalidate the principle of the matter.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, how exactly is it unfair for people to pay for the game in comparison to other games? You'd need to do a complete breakdown on average content offerings, mechanics, etc to even substantiate that claim. You should simply concede this line of debate though, its completely subjective on both parts.
I agree with him. Your point of view is really a bit crazy. Close down the game which is still being played by thousands of players. what kind of idiotic decision is that and who in their right mind would do that? if they are making enough money and still generating profit to keep things going then that is all that matters.
You think companies like to dump money into non profitable projects out of their own pockets?
Not so many years ago SOE, at John Smedley's direction, gutted and ruined SWG, basically causing a legendary mass exodus from the game.
A few years later, SOE aquires Sigil games and forces the premature release of Vanguard, which was regarded by many to be one of the worst launches of any major MMO.
At the time of Vanguard's release (arguably the first iteration of EQN), Smedley promised long term support and upcoming expansion packs. We all know how that went.
So how is it that everyone is suddenly so confident that EQN will be such a great game? Do the words "Everquest" and "sandbox" mentioned in the same sentence suddenly activate a chemical in the brain that causes selective amnesia?
LA called the shots not SOE. It was there idea to change SWG in order to bring in more players. Just like how it was LA's decision to not renew the license because they didn't want SWG to compete with SWTOR.
And SOE didn't force the early release of Vanguard. They infact bought the game when all other companies declined to help Sigil who were really hurting financially and were unable to release the game.
SOE was the only company who agreed to release the game. Vanguard was in deep trouble long before SOE even came into picture.
Next time you want to bash a company i suggest atleast get your information right.
This gentlemen speaks the truth. It amazing how after all this time people still think SOE was 100% the reason of the SWG NGE. Vanguard would have not even seen live release if SOE didn't step in, the lead designer was too busy with a subscription controlled drug addiction and was in no state of mind to lead a team developing a MMO for a good few years.
Not so many years ago SOE, at John Smedley's direction, gutted and ruined SWG, basically causing a legendary mass exodus from the game.
A few years later, SOE aquires Sigil games and forces the premature release of Vanguard, which was regarded by many to be one of the worst launches of any major MMO.
At the time of Vanguard's release (arguably the first iteration of EQN), Smedley promised long term support and upcoming expansion packs. We all know how that went.
So how is it that everyone is suddenly so confident that EQN will be such a great game? Do the words "Everquest" and "sandbox" mentioned in the same sentence suddenly activate a chemical in the brain that causes selective amnesia?
Yes Smed is often full of crap, but you could at least get your facts right. SoE published Vanguard, but Brad McQuaid and Vigil were the ones responsible for it. By the time that SoE acquired the rights for it, the game was already well past launch.
Smed never promised long term support or expansion packs for it. SoE purchased a dud, it didn't perform well and was never going to make them any significant cash, so why would they support it financially?
SoE isn't a charity. At work I don't go around wasting my time and effort on things that don't make me money, why would they?
You would think that most companies in the same position would close down a game they barely support with a few bug fixes over the years, let alone all of the content that any other MMO would have implemented over that time period. I find your attitude toward such a bad business practice to be rather disturbing and perhaps representative of the gamer population's penchant to support crappy games due to their addiction.
They own the IP and it went on their 'Station Access' pass to make it look appealing. They had a whole stable of terrible games that they kept alive for that purpose alone. Matrix Online anyone?
There was enough players to keep the servers online, there wasn't enough appeal to bother investing any further than what was already available. Not sure how that is hard to understand from a business point of view.
If you had just spent a lot of money bailing out a dud game, and it was making a small amount of income to recover that cost, would you turn off the plug? Probably not.
Lets say you had to now invest another $500k to turn it into a better game, but that will probably only attract another few thousand players for about 6 months, which would not make back that investment, would you waste the resources on improving it? Probably not.
SoE did what any company would do in that situation. There is no reason whatsoever to shut down the game while there are enough players that enjoy it, but its not a good investment to pour more money into. The game is too poorly coded to ever make a return to mainstream.
Bottom line - who gives a shit what happened in the past let's see what happens with this game before deciding anything huh? This entire thread is just about crap that happened in the past with other games, doesn't mean jack about what will happen with this one regardless of how much you think it does.
In response to those who continue to believe that my statements regarding the NGE are inaccurate and that Smedley / SOE were not responsible can refer to the link below where Smedley takes full responsibility for the CU and NGE, never once suggesting that LA was involved.
President of Sony Online Entertainment John Smedley has apologised for decisions made on the direction of Star Wars Galaxies, describing then as "stupid" and a "complete and utter fail".
Smedley defended the decision at the time, citing the need to revamp the game in order to stem the loss of subscribers the game was suffering. Instead, however, the updates sparked in-game demonstrations and further player exoduses. Sony subsequently offered refunds to players who bought the Trials Of Obi-Wan expansion as it was released two days prior to the implementation of NGE.
"Stupid decisions," Smedley wrote in response to a question from a user, "Complete and utter fail and I am very sorry."
I like how you completely ignored the post i made earlier. Obvioisly since you want to put all blame on SOE you won't even bother to reply and ignore it again but still here it is...
Nancy MacIntyre, the game's senior director at LucasArts, responded to the changes in the game and the angry objections by disgruntled players. I quote her remarks from the article at length, since, um, you have to see them to believe them.
Ms. MacIntyre: "We really just needed to make the game a lot more accessible to a much broader player base ... There was lots of reading, much too much, in the game. There was a lot of wandering around learning about different abilities. We really needed to give people the experience of being Han Solo or Luke Skywalker rather than being Uncle Owen, the moisture farmer. We wanted more instant gratification: kill, get treasure, repeat. We needed to give people more of an option to be part of what they have seen in the movies rather than something they had created themselves."
The is all the proof anyone need to see it was LA calling shots not SOE. And you can not just simply say no to LA.
Sorry man was AFK for bit and didn't see it. So far, I've cited wikipedia entries, an SOE dev blog, and an article where Smedley clearly takes full responsibility for the CU and NGE, yet somehow none of that is valid to you.
Because you ignore the fact that a Senior Game Director at Lucas Arts admits to the NGE.
How about you just admit it. LA wanted the NGE. SOE agreed with that decision they're at fault, but it is not all on them. Smed took responsibility for it while LA did nothing yet were involved directly with its development.
I'm not saying LA wasn't in agreement about the NGE, however nothing in your article supports the claim that LA pushed the CU or NGE on SOE. On the contrary, the dev blog and article I have provided both indicate that the NGE was a design desicion made by SOE.
I'm always up for a good debate but the fact that you continue to hang your hat on a single article (which doesn't even prove your point) while dismissing any articles or info that I provide makes it kinda pointless to continue to reply to you.
They own the IP and it went on their 'Station Access' pass to make it look appealing. They had a whole stable of terrible games that they kept alive for that purpose alone. Matrix Online anyone?
There was enough players to keep the servers online, there wasn't enough appeal to bother investing any further than what was already available. Not sure how that is hard to understand from a business point of view.
If you had just spent a lot of money bailing out a dud game, and it was making a small amount of income to recover that cost, would you turn off the plug? Probably not.
Lets say you had to now invest another $500k to turn it into a better game, but that will probably only attract another few thousand players for about 6 months, which would not make back that investment, would you waste the resources on improving it? Probably not.
SoE did what any company would do in that situation.
It looks like there are lots of smart people here. +1
Smed may have taken the blame for the NGE, b/c ultimately, it was his division that was responsible for development of it, and pushing it out. But when you dig below the surface a bit, the REAL mastermind behind the NGE becomes clear, it was a LucasArts VP named Nancy MacIntyre that was really responsible for the ideas behind, and the ultimate changes of the NGE.
This is all from a NY Times article about SWG and the NGE, where you can see she was the true culprit that pushed for these changes. You can find the article itself here, and here are some highlights, from Ms.MacIntyre:
"We really just needed to make the game a lot more accessible to a much broader player base," said Nancy MacIntyre, the game's senior director at LucasArts. "There was lots of reading, much too much, in the game. There was a lot of wandering around learning about different abilities. We really needed to give people the experience of being Han Solo or Luke Skywalker rather than being Uncle Owen, the moisture farmer. We wanted more instant gratification: kill, get treasure, repeat. We needed to give people more of an opportunity to be a part of what they have seen in the movies rather than something they had created themselves."
"We knew we were taking a significant risk with our existing player base, but we felt so strongly that we needed to make these changes for the sake of the game's long-term future that we all held hands, LucasArts and Sony, and went forward," Ms. MacIntyre said.
Now, in that last quote, it mentions LA and SoE "holding hands", but reading the rest of the article it's clear where the idea originated, why they thought it was needed, and who was ultimately responsible.
As for Vanguard, the ONLY thing SoE is responsible for is the "maintenance mode" the game's development has been in the last few years. What the game is, and how it got to be the way it is, lays squarely at the feet of Brad McQuaid, one of the original minds behind EQlive, and the man who created Sigil, personally sought out and hired the "all star" staff, and led the company right into the friggin ground. Brad is an idea man, and lets be honest, he DID have some great ideas, the problem was he wasn't a good manager...ok, he was an awful manager as he himself admits. What he should have done was hired everyone, and given people with experience running an active developer the power to run the show, especially finances. Vanguard goes to show that you can have an awesome idea, an amazingly talented team, and the money needed, but if it's not managed properly, it just won't work.
As an interesting side-note, Brad McQuiad is back w/ SoE, originally to work on Vanguard, but he has since been transfered to work on the EQ IP. I don't believe exactly which game he is working on, but my money is on EQNext.
As for SoE, they have always gotten a bad rap, and in many cases justifiably so. But the SoE hate of a few years ago has died down, mostly b/c they have done a 180 and have really made some smart moves the last few years. Planetside 2 turned out to be a lot of fun, w/ a very workable, and non-rip-off F2P model. They have worked on turning EQ2 around from the mess it was at launch and have largely succeeded (although it's still not many peoples' cup o tea). Vanguard has come off of life-support and returned to active development, and from what I hear is doing fairly well all things considered. And they seem to be heading in a good direction w/ EQNext.
IMO, the SoE good-will seen in this thread is well deserved, and actually a little overdue. That's not to say that all is forgotten and forgiven, and it shouldn't be, but all we can do is judge them on their past and current actions, which at least at present, means I am willing to take them at face value.
Comments
You have a forum full of people who have never worked in the business or dealt with 3rd party IP Development assuming they know it all.
Smed said a few years ago working with a 3rd party IP is a bad idea.
Quote from him.
"It’s often frustrating to work with third party IP. There’s a constant battle over what the right direction is for the game, and from our own recent experience, it’s not something we enjoy. It very often puts handcuffs on what we can and can’t do and, frankly speaking, it’s a lot harder to make great games when the IP holders don’t understand the online gaming market."
Sounds like to me the IP holder actually had direct influence on the games design.
Read the second paragraph again carefully before you insert foot into mouth.
Just look at the E3 coverage from this site and Ten Ton Hammer. Both voted EQN 'best of show'. Seems a bit shrillish to me personally. But I guess we will find out in August.
I find your attitude of "No support would have been better than some support" to be rather disturbing and childish. People were playing and enjoying the game. People still play it today. Every single one of them would think your opinion is bordering on retardation.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Sorry man was AFK for bit and didn't see it. So far, I've cited wikipedia entries, an SOE dev blog, and an article where Smedley clearly takes full responsibility for the CU and NGE, yet somehow none of that is valid to you.
Does that somehow invalidate any culpability of the licensee?
Your second paragraph is an incorrect assumption.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
i agree EQN shouldnt have won any awards beyond -- best "press only" demo
EQ2 fan sites
Because you ignore the fact that a Senior Game Director at Lucas Arts admits to the NGE.
How about you just admit it. LA wanted the NGE. SOE agreed with that decision they're at fault, but it is not all on them. Smed took responsibility for it while LA did nothing yet were involved directly with its development.
Yes it does. If a licenser says do something or we pull our licence from your product, you do what they say. It ties the developer's hands. Again you have no idea how the industry works, not even on a small level.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Did i say it is not valid to me? but your original premises is that 'it was all fault of SOE'. Even though people have been quoting articles straight from the horses mouth. Yes SOE was at fault for doing what LA told them to do but how can you say no to LA who hold the rights to the IP and had a great influence over it? tell me.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
-Luke McKinney
This
www.90and9.net
www.prophecymma.com
To me soe is the best mmo game maker out there. Just look at the games they have made EQ,EQ2 ,SWG,plantside 2,free realm and they have done great work with vanguard. I have played all these games and still play eq and vanguard and although they aren't the game they were they changed them because players wanted the easy style like WoW. If anything they are at fault of listening to the player base and trying to give them the game that is popular ATM.
I am 100% sure that EQN will be a great game and i for one cant wait for it to be released.
Call me names all you want, I'm sure a mod will be along shortly. This does not change the fact that SOE is still responsible for a MMO that is not being competitive in the market in regards to updates and patches and expansions. You can see that this is unfair to anyone who pays for the game in that they are not getting their money's worth in comparison to other MMOs that are updating regularly. Just because there are some gamers who are willing to put up with such irresponsibility doesn't invalidate the principle of the matter.
No it doesn't. SWG eventually closed for no better reason than they would have had by disputing or even refusing to comply. Not only would it have been the fiscally responsible thing to do. They are after all doing this for the money. It would have also been the ethical thing to do for their player base. Instead, they behaved irresponsibly and suffered the consequences in the form of player lash-back.
I agree with him. Your point of view is really a bit crazy. Close down the game which is still being played by thousands of players. what kind of idiotic decision is that and who in their right mind would do that? if they are making enough money and still generating profit to keep things going then that is all that matters.
You think companies like to dump money into non profitable projects out of their own pockets?
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
-Luke McKinney
Clearly you don't understand. Supporting a game is always a good thing for the player. If anything SOE was taking a bullet for the fans by taking the game on. Yes the support for it was limited, but that's because the game wasn't a financial success. The fact that they even went through the trouble of continuing to keep the game alive is a testament to their dedication to their fans.
I don't need to call you names. Your attitude speaks for itself.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
I'm not sure what you're getting at, how exactly is it unfair for people to pay for the game in comparison to other games? You'd need to do a complete breakdown on average content offerings, mechanics, etc to even substantiate that claim. You should simply concede this line of debate though, its completely subjective on both parts.
Right on brother.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
This gentlemen speaks the truth. It amazing how after all this time people still think SOE was 100% the reason of the SWG NGE. Vanguard would have not even seen live release if SOE didn't step in, the lead designer was too busy with a subscription controlled drug addiction and was in no state of mind to lead a team developing a MMO for a good few years.
They own the IP and it went on their 'Station Access' pass to make it look appealing. They had a whole stable of terrible games that they kept alive for that purpose alone. Matrix Online anyone?
There was enough players to keep the servers online, there wasn't enough appeal to bother investing any further than what was already available. Not sure how that is hard to understand from a business point of view.
If you had just spent a lot of money bailing out a dud game, and it was making a small amount of income to recover that cost, would you turn off the plug? Probably not.
Lets say you had to now invest another $500k to turn it into a better game, but that will probably only attract another few thousand players for about 6 months, which would not make back that investment, would you waste the resources on improving it? Probably not.
SoE did what any company would do in that situation. There is no reason whatsoever to shut down the game while there are enough players that enjoy it, but its not a good investment to pour more money into. The game is too poorly coded to ever make a return to mainstream.
I'm not saying LA wasn't in agreement about the NGE, however nothing in your article supports the claim that LA pushed the CU or NGE on SOE. On the contrary, the dev blog and article I have provided both indicate that the NGE was a design desicion made by SOE.
I'm always up for a good debate but the fact that you continue to hang your hat on a single article (which doesn't even prove your point) while dismissing any articles or info that I provide makes it kinda pointless to continue to reply to you.
It looks like there are lots of smart people here. +1
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Smed may have taken the blame for the NGE, b/c ultimately, it was his division that was responsible for development of it, and pushing it out. But when you dig below the surface a bit, the REAL mastermind behind the NGE becomes clear, it was a LucasArts VP named Nancy MacIntyre that was really responsible for the ideas behind, and the ultimate changes of the NGE.
This is all from a NY Times article about SWG and the NGE, where you can see she was the true culprit that pushed for these changes. You can find the article itself here, and here are some highlights, from Ms.MacIntyre:
"We really just needed to make the game a lot more accessible to a much broader player base," said Nancy MacIntyre, the game's senior director at LucasArts. "There was lots of reading, much too much, in the game. There was a lot of wandering around learning about different abilities. We really needed to give people the experience of being Han Solo or Luke Skywalker rather than being Uncle Owen, the moisture farmer. We wanted more instant gratification: kill, get treasure, repeat. We needed to give people more of an opportunity to be a part of what they have seen in the movies rather than something they had created themselves."
"We knew we were taking a significant risk with our existing player base, but we felt so strongly that we needed to make these changes for the sake of the game's long-term future that we all held hands, LucasArts and Sony, and went forward," Ms. MacIntyre said.
Now, in that last quote, it mentions LA and SoE "holding hands", but reading the rest of the article it's clear where the idea originated, why they thought it was needed, and who was ultimately responsible.
As for Vanguard, the ONLY thing SoE is responsible for is the "maintenance mode" the game's development has been in the last few years. What the game is, and how it got to be the way it is, lays squarely at the feet of Brad McQuaid, one of the original minds behind EQlive, and the man who created Sigil, personally sought out and hired the "all star" staff, and led the company right into the friggin ground. Brad is an idea man, and lets be honest, he DID have some great ideas, the problem was he wasn't a good manager...ok, he was an awful manager as he himself admits. What he should have done was hired everyone, and given people with experience running an active developer the power to run the show, especially finances. Vanguard goes to show that you can have an awesome idea, an amazingly talented team, and the money needed, but if it's not managed properly, it just won't work.
As an interesting side-note, Brad McQuiad is back w/ SoE, originally to work on Vanguard, but he has since been transfered to work on the EQ IP. I don't believe exactly which game he is working on, but my money is on EQNext.
As for SoE, they have always gotten a bad rap, and in many cases justifiably so. But the SoE hate of a few years ago has died down, mostly b/c they have done a 180 and have really made some smart moves the last few years. Planetside 2 turned out to be a lot of fun, w/ a very workable, and non-rip-off F2P model. They have worked on turning EQ2 around from the mess it was at launch and have largely succeeded (although it's still not many peoples' cup o tea). Vanguard has come off of life-support and returned to active development, and from what I hear is doing fairly well all things considered. And they seem to be heading in a good direction w/ EQNext.
IMO, the SoE good-will seen in this thread is well deserved, and actually a little overdue. That's not to say that all is forgotten and forgiven, and it shouldn't be, but all we can do is judge them on their past and current actions, which at least at present, means I am willing to take them at face value.