Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

[Column] EverQuest Next: Landmark: Monetization, Player Studio, & Other Updates

SBFordSBFord Associate Editor - News ManagerThe Land of AZPosts: 16,658MMORPG.COM Staff Uncommon

The March 5 Landmark Live video brought some more clarifications regarding monetization for the Everquest Next Landmark, as well as how the Player Studio will operate when it comes time for players to sell their wares in-game. Aside from this, there were also some minor clarifications regarding the timeline for the game's updates, most especially Closed Beta's arrival.

Read more of Victor Barreiro Jr.'s EverQuest Next: Landmark - Monetization, Player Studio & Updates.

 

image

Associate Editor: MMORPG.com
Follow me on Twitter: @MMORPGMom

image
«1

Comments

  • TelondarielTelondariel Ottawa, ONPosts: 1,001Member
    Well, word on the street was that EQN:L was going to be a highly monetized cash cow.  Now we know.  Let's just hope that EQN isn't the same.

    image
  • PilnkplonkPilnkplonk zagrebPosts: 1,532Member

    I still don't understand those "tiers" for islands... I find this a make or break issue for me.

    If crafting has linear "tiers" in the sense of resources and recipes then I'll give this game a miss. I was quite stoked up about Wakfu for example, but found the dreadful linearity of their leveller-crafting thing quite atrocious and hugely disappointing. Imo, a healthy and interesting economy should have varied availability and value for resources, but puting them into arbitrary "tiers" and gating them in any way is a very wrong way to go for a sandbox game. A "tier 1" hold should be as economically valuable as a "tier 3" one otherwise you'll have 2/3 of the game abandoned within a week or two and end up with a very simplistic and ultimately boring economy where everyone battles for the "top tier" and unless you're the top dog at that one single thing you're nothing - the very opposite of what sandboxyness is all about.

    Maybe I'm panicking without any real reason but I'd really want to know what those "tiers" actually mean.

     
  • KnyttaKnytta Corning, NYPosts: 349Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

    I still don't understand those "tiers" for islands... I find this a make or break issue for me.

    ........ A "tier 1" hold should be as economically valuable as a "tier 3" one otherwise you'll have 2/3 of the game abandoned within a week or two and end up with a very simplistic and ultimately boring economy where everyone battles for the "top tier" and unless you're the top dog at that one single thing you're nothing - the very opposite of what sandboxyness is all about.

    Maybe I'm panicking without any real reason but I'd really want to know what those "tiers" actually mean.

     

    You have a tiered resource systen copper is a tier one resource, iron tier 2 and so on and each tier requires better tools to harvest, at the moment the resources are somewhat tied to the Tier of the Island. When the game goes live all sorts of resources will be mixed on all islands so you will not have a "bad" claim because you are on a low Tier Island. You may still have to travel to harvest but that is another issue.

    Chi puo dir com'egli arde é in picciol fuoco.

    He who can describe the flame does not burn.

    Petrarch


  • Ender4Ender4 milwaukee, WIPosts: 2,253Member


    Originally posted by Telondariel
    Well, word on the street was that EQN:L was going to be a highly monetized cash cow.  Now we know.  Let's just hope that EQN isn't the same.

    Huh? The model they said they are using for EQN:L is perfect. You don't buy anything if you don't want to and nothing has pay to win elements. If you are going to complain about this model then you are going to complain about literally any monetization in a F2P.

    This would be the case to point to that shows that F2P is a better model than sub fees. F2P games that block content or give you big bonuses are an example of a bad monetization model, the 2nd worst model is the sub fee which is pretty much a complete ripoff unless you happen to be a player who dedicates all their time to just one game. B2P and this version of F2P are easily the two best models.

  • sanshi44sanshi44 BrisbanePosts: 1,088Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

    I still don't understand those "tiers" for islands... I find this a make or break issue for me.

    If crafting has linear "tiers" in the sense of resources and recipes then I'll give this game a miss. I was quite stoked up about Wakfu for example, but found the dreadful linearity of their leveller-crafting thing quite atrocious and hugely disappointing. Imo, a healthy and interesting economy should have varied availability and value for resources, but puting them into arbitrary "tiers" and gating them in any way is a very wrong way to go for a sandbox game. A "tier 1" hold should be as economically valuable as a "tier 3" one otherwise you'll have 2/3 of the game abandoned within a week or two and end up with a very simplistic and ultimately boring economy where everyone battles for the "top tier" and unless you're the top dog at that one single thing you're nothing - the very opposite of what sandboxyness is all about.

    Maybe I'm panicking without any real reason but I'd really want to know what those "tiers" actually mean.

     

    The tier islands is just a tempory system atm, when they add caverns all islands will be the same and higher tier resources will be foiund deeper down in the earth and so on. So Ignore the tiered island resources atm cause it will be changed soon enough.

  • AderewAderew AthensPosts: 45Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Telondariel
    Well, word on the street was that EQN:L was going to be a highly monetized cash cow.  Now we know.  Let's just hope that EQN isn't the same.

    They are a business, not a charity and since this model is far away from P2W, i think it's fair for both the company and the players.

     
  • jogumbyjogumby Janesville, WIPosts: 18Member
    My big problem right now, and yes, I know it's just alpha, is how is this just not a prettier and far more expensive version of Minecraft...
  • NaralNaral Solway, MNPosts: 751Member Uncommon

    Sounds about like Planetside 2, overall, which was one of the better F2P monetization systems out there in my opinion. I spent roughly 50 bucks on PS2, about the cost of a box if it were not F2P, and got everything I wanted in the game.

    I guess EQL is a bit different of a beast, and EQN is the main thing I am interested in.

  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaPosts: 8,466Member Uncommon

    So they will follow the current trend of making money off of a Beta,that is imo pretty darn lame,i find it hard to believe the 5% either.

    If they listen and care about customers,they should ask if we want a cash shop at all,but nope they can't do that because the cash shop is here to stay.All of their brainstorming will involve finding ways to get players to spend more than is FAIR.

    It is because of SOE's greed and VERY shotty business ideals,i could warrant a 7.5 hype scale for the game but for SOE business practices a 1/10.

    You know who business ideals affect ?The customers,so if they treat their customers like a 1/10 there is no way i would support anything they sell.

    Not a bright move by the CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment to name Smed as chief CEO of SOE,their company and respect levels have gone way down since.


    Samoan Diamond

  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaPosts: 8,466Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ender4

     


    Originally posted by Telondariel
    Well, word on the street was that EQN:L was going to be a highly monetized cash cow.  Now we know.  Let's just hope that EQN isn't the same.

     

    Huh? The model they said they are using for EQN:L is perfect. You don't buy anything if you don't want to and nothing has pay to win elements. If you are going to complain about this model then you are going to complain about literally any monetization in a F2P.

    This would be the case to point to that shows that F2P is a better model than sub fees. F2P games that block content or give you big bonuses are an example of a bad monetization model, the 2nd worst model is the sub fee which is pretty much a complete ripoff unless you happen to be a player who dedicates all their time to just one game. B2P and this version of F2P are easily the two best models.

    Wow i do not agree with anything youare saying.

    To prove you are hypocritical,you do realize the ability to sell player made items IS a cash shop ideal,this is BLOCKED game ideals and a HUGE benefit to those who pay them money.

    So far people keep posting that this so called FREE to play model is making MORE money than sub fees,so how is that FAIR and not RIPPING OFF customers?

    You know how this started right?Soe was losing money,they had VERY few EQ1 and EQ2 customers but figured the ones they had were so loyal they could figure a way to grind even more money from them.

    If you refuse to believe that,then ask yourself WHY,they chose to remove the CHOICE?They had both cash shop AND sub fee servers but chose to remove the sub fee servers and give you ZERO choice!

     


    Samoan Diamond

  • EndoRobotoEndoRoboto Silverdale, WAPosts: 275Member
    I don't think the game would have a cash shop if there was a subscription fee... since there is no sub, cash shop is inevitable. Or hell, do like ESO have a script and a cash shop! Ultimate cash farming.
  • docminus2docminus2 StockholmPosts: 158Member Common
    Dunno, I think I wouldn't mind cash-shop too much, but the problem for me is, if I am willing to pay cash I need to make a budget. And making a budget on an everyday basis sounds like work. Then I prefer the sub model, pay once and forget. But I guess those days are gone for most part nowadays....

    --------------------------------------------
    Youtube newb:

  • keenberkeenber galwayPosts: 438Member

    First off ESO dose not have any cash shops.

    The biggest worry about all F2P games is when it comes to crafting they will make the good mats very hard to get so people will buy the mats in the cash shop. Also the inventory space will end up costing a fortune and if there is a failure chance when crafting top tear gear then you can bet they will make it like a 10% success chance and sell potions that will make them 100% success rate. If that not pay to win i don't know what is.

  • KnotwoodKnotwood Missoula, MTPosts: 1,103Member

    Yikes, They did this with EQ2 when it first came out.  People love cash, or the chance at getting cash.  What they'll find instead is they'll have to work like a Chinese gold farming company to get any sort of real cash.   Live gamer which hosted EQ2's cash store was shut down a few years back because eventually everyone who pays for these in game items had what they wanted.

     

    Its going to be instresting to watch what kind of players get in there to take control of the system and start using stock selling computer software to try to manage the entire selling market, (i.e. buy and sell faster then a split second.)   SOE is that 80's kind of business that makes money off of everything they can.  The smartest business men out there,  leaving customers broke but feeling like its their own fault afterwards.   But It'll be successful,  whats next in EQ NEXT,  a real life lottery?   A real life Casino?

  • SephastusSephastus New Brunswick, NJPosts: 448Member Uncommon

    Wizardry, calm down... step back.

    .

    Calm?

    .

    This is a game.

    .

    There is no locked progression if you don't give it a single cent. Also, they never "removed" sub-fee servers... I still pay a sub fee. All they did was open up all their servers for anyone to play.

    .

    But, I see you have some issues with SOE. Any cash they make is bad in your eyes. Don't believe me? Please let me know how you would monetize this game in a way that you would not see as a "cash grab"?

     

  • DaranarDaranar Walkersville, MDPosts: 177Member Uncommon

    I'm OK with this.   I trust SOE in their cash shop decisions.   After playing Neverwinter, SOE can't be any worse with their cash shop.    Plus, I played Dragon's Prophet for a few months and in beta.   I noticed most prices from beta to release dropped.  Which gives me trust in SOE.  (note in beta they did not actually charge you money, you got "free" beta SC).    Anyway, if EQN/ EQN:L prices are in the ballpark of Dragon's Prophet, I will be very happy, specially with my 4k SC saved up :)

    I just hope there is a sub option still like in EQ1 and EQ2!

    If I want a world in which people can purchase success and power with cash, I'll play Real Life. Keep Virtual Worlds Virtual!

  • KnotwoodKnotwood Missoula, MTPosts: 1,103Member

    EQ Next is going to offer, all three pay types.

    Subs if you want to sub,  Buy to Play if you want to just buy it all and never pay a cent again, or you could play for free, you wont ever have to spend a penny on the game, EVER,  you just wont be able to raid, do certain dungeons, get top gear, but you'll be able to choose your type of pay style. 

  • giga1000giga1000 Federal Way, WAPosts: 98Member

    Some of you people are bat shit crazy lol. This is about fair as fair gets. It is as simple as simple gets. Hell they are telling you their business model in alpha and asking for critique about it from the players. 

    1. There will be 1 or 2 things that you can't earn in game sold on the marketplace which is Custom SOE appearance items and a couple potions/services. Everything else is obtainable in game. There will be player made appearance items craftable in game too as well as Custom player made appearance items put on Player Studio too for Player to Player sale.

    2. As stated the game is F2P and you can sub to Station Pass for most likely account perks if you want Gold access just like all other SOE games. So for 14.99$ a month you get gold access to EQNL,EQN,PS2,EQ1,EQ2, maybe Dragons Prophet. 

    3. Player Studio is for if you want to sell your creation templates to other players which if bought SOE cuts you a check every quarter real money. This will not be limited to building this will include all future FEATURES like music, props, PVP, dungeons, player made quests, etc.

    There are other things and you can read about them as SOE has put them up for all of us to see in plain sight. And they will continue to do so.

  • jpaprockijpaprocki Davisville, WVPosts: 273Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ender4

     


    Originally posted by Telondariel
    Well, word on the street was that EQN:L was going to be a highly monetized cash cow.  Now we know.  Let's just hope that EQN isn't the same.

     

    Huh? The model they said they are using for EQN:L is perfect. You don't buy anything if you don't want to and nothing has pay to win elements. If you are going to complain about this model then you are going to complain about literally any monetization in a F2P.

    This would be the case to point to that shows that F2P is a better model than sub fees. F2P games that block content or give you big bonuses are an example of a bad monetization model, the 2nd worst model is the sub fee which is pretty much a complete ripoff unless you happen to be a player who dedicates all their time to just one game. B2P and this version of F2P are easily the two best models.

    I love how people on here state their opinion as fact.  They may be the best for you, but not for me.

    I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.

  • KyllienKyllien Renton, WAPosts: 315Member
    Originally posted by Telondariel
    Well, word on the street was that EQN:L was going to be a highly monetized cash cow.  Now we know.  Let's just hope that EQN isn't the same.

    Is there a problem with allowing people to sell thier resources and for SOE to sell resources?  The Cash shop is going to be used for providing short cuts.  Since this is not a rush to max level game there is absolutely no reason for them not to sell the resources.  You can always go and gather the resources yourself if you enjoy that kind of thing or if you can't afford to buy the short cut.

    The other part is player studio where you can sell templates of things you have created.   Since the player also gets paid is there something wrong here?

  • KyllienKyllien Renton, WAPosts: 315Member
    Originally posted by nttajira

    f2p game? move move, nothing to see here

    hope they all die soon, when people wake up and think, hey they are not realy free and for enjoy them i need to pay far more money that something small like 50cent a day !!!

    You will not need to buy anything or spend a single cent to play EQNL.  This is not a rush to max level game.  This is a build and explore and create content and explore and build enviroments and explore.  The cash shop is there if you want to shorten the time it takes to gather resources.  You don't need the shortcut but it is there if you want it.

  • KyllienKyllien Renton, WAPosts: 315Member
    Originally posted by EndoRoboto
    I don't think the game would have a cash shop if there was a subscription fee... since there is no sub, cash shop is inevitable. Or hell, do like ESO have a script and a cash shop! Ultimate cash farming.
     

    There will be a Sub (All Access Pass).  Also this article is all about Everquest Next Landmark.  There is no real reference to Everquest Next.  Please don't read into what they are doing with Landmark as being applied to Next, they are two different games.

  • KyllienKyllien Renton, WAPosts: 315Member
    Originally posted by Wizardry

    So they will follow the current trend of making money off of a Beta,that is imo pretty darn lame,i find it hard to believe the 5% either.

    If they listen and care about customers,they should ask if we want a cash shop at all,but nope they can't do that because the cash shop is here to stay.All of their brainstorming will involve finding ways to get players to spend more than is FAIR.

    It is because of SOE's greed and VERY shotty business ideals,i could warrant a 7.5 hype scale for the game but for SOE business practices a 1/10.

    You know who business ideals affect ?The customers,so if they treat their customers like a 1/10 there is no way i would support anything they sell.

    Not a bright move by the CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment to name Smed as chief CEO of SOE,their company and respect levels have gone way down since.

     

    You are aware that it costs money to make games?  They have to pay the developers for thier time.  And yes there is profit.  They are not the first company to sell founders packs.  They may be the first company to let players in this early however.

     
  • KarteliKarteli Providence, PAPosts: 2,646Member
    Originally posted by Kyllien
    Originally posted by Wizardry

    So they will follow the current trend of making money off of a Beta,that is imo pretty darn lame,i find it hard to believe the 5% either.

    If they listen and care about customers,they should ask if we want a cash shop at all,but nope they can't do that because the cash shop is here to stay.All of their brainstorming will involve finding ways to get players to spend more than is FAIR.

    It is because of SOE's greed and VERY shotty business ideals,i could warrant a 7.5 hype scale for the game but for SOE business practices a 1/10.

    You know who business ideals affect ?The customers,so if they treat their customers like a 1/10 there is no way i would support anything they sell.

    Not a bright move by the CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment to name Smed as chief CEO of SOE,their company and respect levels have gone way down since.

     

    You are aware that it costs money to make games?  They have to pay the developers for thier time.  And yes there is profit.  They are not the first company to sell founders packs.  They may be the first company to let players in this early however.

     

    Gamers really don't care about how much money a company makes.  More incoming money has been shown to NOT equate to quality.

     

    How about if games were just about quality instead of the bottom dollar? 

     

    How about if fans see quality instead of justifying a companies gross revenue?

     

    I personally look for quality.  If a dev's revenue is dependent on said quality, then it is justified. (assuming the game is good).  EQN has little known other than pre-alpha.  So justifying any expenses IMO is extremely premature.

     

    Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NNHmV3QPw&feature=plcp
    Recognize the voice? Yep sounds like Penny Arcade's Extra Credits.

  • KyllienKyllien Renton, WAPosts: 315Member
    Originally posted by Karteli
    Originally posted by Kyllien
    Originally posted by Wizardry

    So they will follow the current trend of making money off of a Beta,that is imo pretty darn lame,i find it hard to believe the 5% either.

    If they listen and care about customers,they should ask if we want a cash shop at all,but nope they can't do that because the cash shop is here to stay.All of their brainstorming will involve finding ways to get players to spend more than is FAIR.

    It is because of SOE's greed and VERY shotty business ideals,i could warrant a 7.5 hype scale for the game but for SOE business practices a 1/10.

    You know who business ideals affect ?The customers,so if they treat their customers like a 1/10 there is no way i would support anything they sell.

    Not a bright move by the CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment to name Smed as chief CEO of SOE,their company and respect levels have gone way down since.

     

    You are aware that it costs money to make games?  They have to pay the developers for thier time.  And yes there is profit.  They are not the first company to sell founders packs.  They may be the first company to let players in this early however.

     

    Gamers really don't care about how much money a company makes.  More incoming money has been shown to NOT equate to quality.

     

    How about if games were just about quality instead of the bottom dollar? 

     

    How about if fans see quality instead of justifying a companies gross revenue?

     

    I personally look for quality.  If a dev's revenue is dependent on said quality, then it is justified. (assuming the game is good).  EQN has little known other than pre-alpha.  So justifying any expenses IMO is extremely premature.

     

    I too like quality.  The difference is the different thresholds.   My point was more directed towards the arbitrary argument being thrown at Cash Shops and the assumptions people are making.

    If you don't like the game then fine complain about what is broken.  But selling something that you can otherwise gather or create yourself doesn't take anything from the game.  It just creates a shortcut.  Since Landmark is all about exploration and creation there is no winning so you can't pay to win.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.