Smedley: "EverQuest Next will be the world's largest sandbox-style MMO ever made"

odinsrath · October 2012

well i have my fingers and toes crossed that its a good solid mmorpg..there just really isnt any out there anymore but im not giving my hopes up..and stil praying for arche age

Dreamo84 · October 2012

You know what? Everyone has by dying for some big company to put the money out there to develope a real sandbox MMO.

I am honestly not surprised that SoE is taking that risk. They take risks with every MMO they make. I applaud them for it whether it works out good or not.

Rimmersman · October 2012

Originally posted by CalmOceans
Originally posted by Rimmersman

True, i remember when LDON introduced instances to EQ. I liked it the way it was but things move on, it's one of the reasons i still get my kicks in Vanguard now and again. It's way closer to the old systems of EQ than EQ2 could ever be.

I would have continued Vanguard if the population was bigger, Vanguard's dungeons were great, I have never played a game that felt so open and wide as Vanguard.

Yeah pop is problem, EQNext might just save us from the endless serving of glorified co-op crusade devs are on now.

Burntvet · October 2012

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
Originally posted by OG_Zorvan
Originally posted by Aelious
Originally posted by Burntvet
/snip

What he said is substantially correct.

Smed bought the rights to Vanguard, a game that had spent at least $25 mil on development allegedly for $3 mil. (This was after McQuaid was absent for several months in the run up to launch, allegedly due to prescription drug abuse issues).

The game was 80%-85% or so complete when SOE bought it, after McQuaid's company went under and laid off 3/4 of the people working there, only retaining a small percentage to "get the game out the door". SOE paid for several more months of development.

Regretably for people that actually liked vanguard, the game still needed another 6-12 months of dev time to work well when it was released. Many, many things were not working well or broken at launch, or missing. Also, the code was so badly optimized that the game was almost unplayable for anyone not running a top end rig, and it was that way a long while.

The threads from launch time are still in the forums here, should you care to read up on that time.

But to answer the question: Smed bought Vanguard because: 1. He did not want a "new" game in direct competiton to EQ2 (which SOE had invested a ton of money in) and 2. Vanguard was cheap to buy.

It was very clear that SOE never really cared much about Vanguard, as over the years, it went down to one or zero full time devs, from time to time, and there are or were still bugs in there from launch.

Do you have proof to substantiate any of this or is this just "common knowledge"? It's one thing to play conspiracy theorist with motives which can result in a few outcomes. If you're going to put hard numbers up though show the goods and if you're going to bring up a rumor about someone's alleged substance abuse you damn sure better have something to back it up.

And anyone with more than two brain cells in their cranium can see that SOE did their very best to bury Vanguard as soon as they took it over after Microsoft bailed. Vanguard was a direct competitor to EQ2.; SOE removed that competition by buying the game, getting it to bare minimum standards for release, shoveling it onto Station Pass, then gutting the dev team to less than a handful of people and letting the game rot with almost no updates for years. EQ2 being long in the tooth and EQNext being released next year is the only reason SOE decided to pull Vanguard from the virtual gutter long enough to retool the game for F2P.

That doesn't even make sense. Soe paid first spent money on the game as a publisher, then spnet money to buy the game, then spent money on a dev team and 2 years to try and repair the game. You don't spend that kind of money and spendan time trying to fix it just to run it into the ground.

Fact is Vanguard was never a threat to the EQ series. After Sigl released the game (Soe did not own it on release) the game crashed hard. At best after that it was doomed to NIche. SoE picked it up cheap and hoped to make some small amount of money off it and have a game they could add to their other small titles.

However there comes a time when it just doesn't make any more sense to throw money at a sinking project. Despite spending quite a bit of time and money on the game there was no increase in population

As someone else stated, "There comes a time when you've spent too much money and you are getting little to no return, you just have to stop spending more money into it. SOE not only bailed Sigil and just so it could even launch, it gave Vanguard more development time when Sigil ran out of money. Then they bought it and spent the 2 years after release staffing the game with developers, coders, programmers, graphic artists, animators, etc.. just to tweak, fix, and finish the game off.

To suggest SOE threw this game in the garbage is turning a blind eye on just how bad of a shape this game was in, and how little players it had from the very beginning and how many left the game during the first year. Again, if it was your money funding this game before and after launch, you would've dumped it a long time ago. Because nobody would be willing to operate at a loss for such a long time, only companies that can do it are like SOE with several games in their lineup that could pickup the tabs."

It makes perfect sense, if you consider that Smed didn't really know what a mess Vanguard/Sigil was when he bought it.

I am sure it was represented as "mostly done, almost ready for lauch, etc. etc." and as mentioned, Smed knew he could get the game for a song, dump it on the Station Pass (which was SOE's big money maker back then) and control its destiny, instead of having a new competitor to EQ2, at a time when WoW was kicking the azz of everything, and one reason EQ2 never did as well as Smed wanted.

Smed thought he was getting a good deal, but he bought a "pig in a poke" without knowing what he was buying. (Awww, poor Smed).

Yes, SOE contined to fund the minor development of Vanguard, simply because they owned it, at that point, and it was fodder for Station Pass.

But after the inital pass at getting it in "playable shape" (which they barely did) almost nothing in the way of meaniful updates was done for years, going down to part time devs only for a long while.

Good money after bad? Maybe. But SOE/Smed has never been known to have good business judgement...

Olgark · October 2012

As soon as you put in guild rewards and raid proggressions it stops being a sandbox. A sandbox MMO must have an economy driven by the players and I don't mean in the sense of a auction house.

The reason Ultima Online is such a hit is that there are no classes (there maybe no with a set of skills.) but your not tied to them for ever. Eve Online is a hit due to its massive pvp and ability for players to shape the game world, both of these MMO's have player driven markets.

When you introduce a auction house, raids and classes/levels the game stops being a sandbox. Rift MMO is not a sandbox game for your information. Its just gives players a freedom to have different skill sets within a class.

The Secret World is a sandbox as there are no levels or classes involved. Yes you gain exp to unlock skills/abilities, but your not stuck playing a certain type of priest or warrior etc.

Eve Online is about the truest sandbox mmo out there at the moment, and its one of the best MMOs to boot. Because CCP listen to the players.

SOE has a horrid history of not listening to the players and yes I will hold the SWG fiasco over their heads and will judge them by that failure. As I will judge BioWare for the failure of SWTOR, DA:2 and ME3.

I was on the forums weeks before the NGE went live and read a lot of threads and posts from players begging SOE not to go ahead with the patch. SOE didn't listen then so why will they listen now ?

ShakyMo · October 2012

Lol tsw isn't a sandbox. It just has a leveling system borrowed from sand boxes, everything else is pure thempark, wow style instance grind endgame and all.

Icewhite · October 2012

Originally posted by Nitth
Who holds the rights to the universal definition of a sandbox?

Anyone who can grab a sign and climb atop the soap box.

rungard · October 2012

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Because the whole bloody point of a sandbox is you can go where you want when you want. As soon as you have gear fated content. IT'S NOT A SANDBOX

so if i have a game that has raids, and the result of these raids are magic items my guild can use to improve the guild, and say we take down a dragon, and we get a giant fire crystal. Lets say this giant fire crystal can be used to create a flamethrower turrets on a castles wall.

this is not a sandbox?

say i join a npc guild with my ranger, and i help that npc guild with my RANGER<---a class, and as a result i help develop the npc guild and build a great ranger stronghold where there was nothing before.

this is not a sandbox?

i think your view of a sandbox is far to pure to be useful. Sandbox is all about building and creation, but it must be kept fleible enough to ensure that its also a good game and not a complete simulator.

Perhaps we should stop using the term sandbox and use world instead. World is obviously a far more useful and flexible term.

erictlewis · October 2012

Originally posted by rungard
Originally posted by ShakyMo
Because the whole bloody point of a sandbox is you can go where you want when you want. As soon as you have gear fated content. IT'S NOT A SANDBOX

so if i have a game that has raids, and the result of these raids are magic items my guild can use to improve the guild, and say we take down a dragon, and we get a giant fire crystal. Lets say this giant fire crystal can be used to create a flamethrower turrets on a castles wall.

this is not a sandbox?

say i join a npc guild with my ranger, and i help that npc guild with my RANGER<---a class, and as a result i help develop the npc guild and build a great ranger stronghold where there was nothing before.

this is not a sandbox?

i think your view of a sandbox is far to pure to be useful. Sandbox is all about building and creation, but it must be kept fleible enough to ensure that its also a good game and not a complete simulator.

Perhaps we should stop using the term sandbox and use world instead. World is obviously a far more useful and flexible term.

Do you even know what the term NPC means?? Non Player Character and your going to join a non player character guild?? No such thing exist in eq, or eq2. That is about one of the silliest thing I heard in a long time, join an NPC guild lol. I gues syouwould be the only one talking in guild chat.

DSWBeef · October 2012

Originally posted by erictlewis
Originally posted by rungard
Originally posted by ShakyMo
Because the whole bloody point of a sandbox is you can go where you want when you want. As soon as you have gear fated content. IT'S NOT A SANDBOX

so if i have a game that has raids, and the result of these raids are magic items my guild can use to improve the guild, and say we take down a dragon, and we get a giant fire crystal. Lets say this giant fire crystal can be used to create a flamethrower turrets on a castles wall.

this is not a sandbox?

say i join a npc guild with my ranger, and i help that npc guild with my RANGER<---a class, and as a result i help develop the npc guild and build a great ranger stronghold where there was nothing before.

this is not a sandbox?

i think your view of a sandbox is far to pure to be useful. Sandbox is all about building and creation, but it must be kept fleible enough to ensure that its also a good game and not a complete simulator.

Perhaps we should stop using the term sandbox and use world instead. World is obviously a far more useful and flexible term.

Do you even know what the term NPC means?? Non Player Character and your going to join a non player character guild?? No such thing exist in eq, or eq2. That is about one of the silliest thing I heard in a long time, join an NPC guild lol. I gues syouwould be the only one talking in guild chat.

By guild i think he means a faction of some sorts.

rungard · October 2012

Originally posted by erictlewis
Originally posted by rungard
Originally posted by ShakyMo
Because the whole bloody point of a sandbox is you can go where you want when you want. As soon as you have gear fated content. IT'S NOT A SANDBOX

so if i have a game that has raids, and the result of these raids are magic items my guild can use to improve the guild, and say we take down a dragon, and we get a giant fire crystal. Lets say this giant fire crystal can be used to create a flamethrower turrets on a castles wall.

this is not a sandbox?

say i join a npc guild with my ranger, and i help that npc guild with my RANGER<---a class, and as a result i help develop the npc guild and build a great ranger stronghold where there was nothing before.

this is not a sandbox?

i think your view of a sandbox is far to pure to be useful. Sandbox is all about building and creation, but it must be kept fleible enough to ensure that its also a good game and not a complete simulator.

Perhaps we should stop using the term sandbox and use world instead. World is obviously a far more useful and flexible term.

Do you even know what the term NPC means?? Non Player Character and your going to join a non player character guild?? No such thing exist in eq, or eq2. That is about one of the silliest thing I heard in a long time, join an NPC guild lol. I gues syouwould be the only one talking in guild chat.

me and all the other players, who play rangers that joined. Why does a guild have to be the exclusive domain of players? Can we not have a faction in a game that behaves somewhat like a player guild, just without all the drama of player leadership?

Eq had factions, and some of those factions had leaders, can we not expand them to allow players to participate in them? Can we not also allow them to grow through players actions in a sandbox style game?

i think we can. If Mr Smedley is half smart i hope he will see what a great feature the faction system of eq was and do something to make it a more interactive part of the game.

Draemos · October 2012

Just wanted to point out that sandboxes are cheaper to develope than themeparks, for those of you that keep trumpeting funding as an issue.

Vorthanion · October 2012

Originally posted by Olgark
SOE can't make a decent sandbox game they proved it with the mess up that was SWG and their NGE patch.

The only reason why the CU and NGE happened is due to the fact that their sandbox game was hemorrhaging subscriptions and they panicked.

Drevar · October 2012

$100 says Smedley's definition of sandbox is nothing like what most people who are excited about this is.

A year from now :"I promised you a sandbox and I delivered a sandbox. Sucks for you if you don't agree with what I consider a sandbox."

Vorthanion · October 2012

Originally posted by rungard
Originally posted by ShakyMo
Because the whole bloody point of a sandbox is you can go where you want when you want. As soon as you have gear fated content. IT'S NOT A SANDBOX

so if i have a game that has raids, and the result of these raids are magic items my guild can use to improve the guild, and say we take down a dragon, and we get a giant fire crystal. Lets say this giant fire crystal can be used to create a flamethrower turrets on a castles wall.

this is not a sandbox?

say i join a npc guild with my ranger, and i help that npc guild with my RANGER<---a class, and as a result i help develop the npc guild and build a great ranger stronghold where there was nothing before.

this is not a sandbox?

i think your view of a sandbox is far to pure to be useful. Sandbox is all about building and creation, but it must be kept fleible enough to ensure that its also a good game and not a complete simulator.

Perhaps we should stop using the term sandbox and use world instead. World is obviously a far more useful and flexible term.

I fail to see how guild rewards constitute sandbox gameplay. You are merely replacing individual rewards with guild rewards, while the gameplay itself remains the same. Reward systems have nothing to do with sandbox or themepark. It's how you attain them and whether you make it exclusive for the minority of the player base.

rungard · October 2012

Originally posted by Vorthanion
Originally posted by rungard
Originally posted by ShakyMo
Because the whole bloody point of a sandbox is you can go where you want when you want. As soon as you have gear fated content. IT'S NOT A SANDBOX

so if i have a game that has raids, and the result of these raids are magic items my guild can use to improve the guild, and say we take down a dragon, and we get a giant fire crystal. Lets say this giant fire crystal can be used to create a flamethrower turrets on a castles wall.

this is not a sandbox?

say i join a npc guild with my ranger, and i help that npc guild with my RANGER<---a class, and as a result i help develop the npc guild and build a great ranger stronghold where there was nothing before.

this is not a sandbox?

i think your view of a sandbox is far to pure to be useful. Sandbox is all about building and creation, but it must be kept fleible enough to ensure that its also a good game and not a complete simulator.

Perhaps we should stop using the term sandbox and use world instead. World is obviously a far more useful and flexible term.

I fail to see how guild rewards constitute sandbox gameplay. You are merely replacing individual rewards with guild rewards, while the gameplay itself remains the same. Reward systems have nothing to do with sandbox or themepark. It's how you attain them and whether you make it exclusive for the minority of the player base.

it does make a difference. Not being able to get personal gear from raids ensures that crafting is most likely the main source for player gear. Sandbox or not you still need activities for players and guilds to work at, and since sandbox games promote creation and building beyond the character and toward the community, moving to guild rewards will help give a guild a sense of community and identity.

just because its sandbox doesnt mean theres no game to play.

CalmOceans · October 2012

Originally posted by Draemos
Just wanted to point out that sandboxes are cheaper to develope than themeparks, for those of you that keep trumpeting funding as an issue.

What they actually said word for word is that a lot of content could be player made.

"there is no content!!!!"

"you wanted a sandbox, you got a sandbox"

pvpirl · October 2012

At last, my sig is relevant.

Burntvet · October 2012

Originally posted by Vorthanion
Originally posted by Olgark
SOE can't make a decent sandbox game they proved it with the mess up that was SWG and their NGE patch.

The only reason why the CU and NGE happened is due to the fact that their sandbox game was hemorrhaging subscriptions and they panicked.

Two words: WoW Fever

ste2000 · October 2012

324 replies.

Apparently "sandbox" is the new black..................

Burntvet · October 2012

Originally posted by ste2000
324 replies.

Apparently "sandbox" is the new black..................

Considering the fact that TOR, TSW, and other themeparks have been "underpreforming", are you surprised?

Not that I would ever trust anything Smed says, but there are enough developers out there that could put some decent money behind a sandbox game, and might now be willing to, since the collapse of the themepark market to new offerings.

Whether an actual sandbox type game (UO) or very deep hybrid (SWG) actually will end up coming out is anyone's guess.

But it won't be from SOE.

pvpirl · October 2012

As a player who cut my teeth on The Realm 2x, UO, and having played EQ from launch day till POP I think this retrospective on MMO development is the fresh attitude needed for the genre to survive. But, as another poster noted (idk if it was this or in another thread, sorry for not properly quoting you.) that at this point the "sandiness" of this sandbox is left up to speculation and the imagination.

Could it be Darkfall: Norrath, will FFA pvp and brutal death conditions? Could it be EQ1 with player created content and housing and thats what they call a Sandbox? We'll see.

Also, to address those lamenting over them starting over, realize that nobody highlighted every file from their prior 2 years of progress and hit the delete key. Animations, sound effects, basic mechanics, the bulk of the labor, will no doubt stay in tact.

As a huge sandbox fan, I'd love to see done right what so many others have done wrong (Mortal Online, etc) and will be following any released development information closely, yet cautiously. If one thing over a decade of MMO hobbyism has taught anyone, it is to believe it when you see it.

Dreamo84 · October 2012

Originally posted by pvpirl
As a player who cut my teeth on The Realm 2x, UO, and having played EQ from launch day till POP I think this retrospective on MMO development is the fresh attitude needed for the genre to survive. But, as another poster noted (idk if it was this or in another thread, sorry for not properly quoting you.) that at this point the "sandiness" of this sandbox is left up to speculation and the imagination.

Could it be Darkfall: Norrath, will FFA pvp and brutal death conditions? Could it be EQ1 with player created content and housing and thats what they call a Sandbox? We'll see.

Also, to address those lamenting over them starting over, realize that nobody highlighted every file from their prior 2 years of progress and hit the delete key. Animations, sound effects, basic mechanics, the bulk of the labor, will no doubt stay in tact.

As a huge sandbox fan, I'd love to see done right what so many others have done wrong (Mortal Online, etc) and will be following any released development information closely, yet cautiously. If one thing over a decade of MMO hobbyism has taught anyone, it is to believe it when you see it.

I don't see it being FFA pvp, just because SoE knows they have to make it accessible to more audiences and the EQ brand fanbase is largely PvE.

pvpirl · October 2012

I don't actually think EQN is going maintain FFA PVP full loot dynamic, it was just the far end of the sandbox spectrum (UO) in my point that we don't know exactly what they mean by sandbox. I, personally, hope it's a healthy combination of UO, EQ1 and Archeage.

CalmOceans · October 2012

I think if there is PVP it will be limited to PVP servers, and PVE servers will be completely split.

EQ1's playerbase is completely PVE based, I would say 99% of the players are PVE purists.

EQ2's playerbase I'm not so sure about, but I think it's slightly more PVP but the majority would still be PVE.

I think if there is PVP it will be by choice through server type.

Howdy, Stranger!

Smedley: "EverQuest Next will be the world's largest sandbox-style MMO ever made"

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Smedley: "EverQuest Next will be the world's largest sandbox-style MMO ever made"

Comments