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!

Graphics: The Least of EQ: Next's Problems

124

Comments

  • DullahanDullahan Posts: 2,053Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Strayfe
    Originally posted by Allein

    I do agree with you. Just so tired of all the hating on whatever game, genre, play style, etc. So many posts make huge assumptions about a game we know very little about and generalizations about players just to get the fire going. Hard to have intelligent conversations when most of the comments are missing logic and objectivity. F2P is needed to keep games going now, I'll sub if it is worth it, but I wouldn't want them to attempt to keep profitable without it. Annoying F2P griefers < game staying above water.

    I don't buy this at all.  For a game with a solid community, a virtual world aspect, and group-focused gameplay which does not pander to those looking for instant gratification, I would pay a $30 sub.  I would pay a $50 sub.  I may even consider paying a $100 sub, because at the end of the day, $3.33 a day for unlimited entertainment is dirt cheap and it would guarantee that the people who hop games, troll everything, bring the community down and then move on to the next big thing would be kept far away from this.

    Yes, it would guarantee it, but it would also guarantee a much smaller population in said world.  One of the goals in MMORPGs, especially one like EQ Next is to try to simulate a virtual world with as many people co-existing as possible.

    I guarantee that I'm not alone.

    F2P uses marketing gimmicks, artificial roadblocks and shady business practices involving human psychology of reward and gratification to draw more money from gullible people who will then turn around and adamantly defend the business model for... reasons that escape me.

    I contend that F2P is necessary at this point in time, especially if you're game isn't something completely unique like Eve.  There are of course, right ways and wrong ways to do F2P.  Some of these ways can be described as shady, but on the other hand, I would consider most of the P2P MMOs in the last decade to be shady to require a purchase and subscription.  After playing them, I immediately realized they fucked me over and now im out $50-100 bucks for something I played only a few weeks.

    The problem with making the argument that it's all down to personal preference is simply this: the people whose personal preference is virtual worlds with group content and a subscription fee are no longer having games made for us AT ALL, EVER.  Every.  Single.  Game.  is being released to cater to the instant gratification, console/twitch crowd and is being monetized to take advantage of the psychology of gamers in a really greedy, backwards way that is made all the more so because most people don't even realize the tactics being used to make them open their wallet and overpay for things that used to be available in subscription games for free.

    So much truth in there, except the part about F2P.

    Of course businesses are going to use the F2P model.  They will do so because people are, unfortunately, stupid enough to fall for it and for every hundred players who pay nothing, you will get one crazed lunatic who will pay $20,000.00 for a F2P game if the developer gives the option to do so.  F2P games are not built for the free player.  They're built specifically to entice players to spend as much as possible with no ceiling, to create disparity, peer pressure and tension among the playerbase.  To create conflict by broadcasting cash shop items globally to shame others into seeing things they can't have without spending x * $5 per random gambling box.

    I disagree here, because as I said above, it is ultimately at the player's discretion whether he buys into a F2P game.  You must be a paralegal for a defense attorney, because you're certainly biased against "the big corporations."  You can't overlook the fact that games that offer F2P are providing players with enjoyment, and people are responsible for how they spend their money.  I, for instance, have played Planetside 2 since launch and have spent maybe $50 bucks for 100s of hours of enjoyment over the last 9 months.

    So yes, in a sense, the idea of a cooperative or competitive virtual world is, at its very core, impossible under the F2P business model, and it can not be possible without an investment and attachment by the players.

    EQ: Next will be a successful game, it will make SOE a lot of money.  Sadly, that is all that matters anymore.  There is no pride in the quality of the product, no passion in game development, no interest in creating something that is long lasting and valuable.  This game, and these types of games are a success in only one respect, money, and they are running the genre into the ground and corrupting it to attain their goals.

    You will see complaints from EQ (and other games like it) vets, the extremely vocal and passionate minority, because there is nothing new for us to play.  There is nothing being made that caters to the playstyles we enjoy.  There are no options.  There are no outlets.  We are reduced to playing decades old games (which have been changed in most respects to suit the same instant gratification demographic), and/or begging and pleading developers for the most minute and insignificant content types that remind us of what used to be, of the roots of the genre newer players take for granted, and the stories, friendships and adventures we built in them.

    This is not an argument about the financial success of a game, or the viability of a business model.  It's a condemnation and acknowledgement of the terrible side effects this paradigm shift in the MMO industry is bringing upon us.

    I went off topic a bit there, but suffice it to say, most of us who share my opinion are well aware that we can do absolutely nothing but watch the genre devolve and hope for a miracle at some point.  Naturally we're frustrated, and naturally we communicate in the only way we are able to show our frustration.

    A lot of good points, but I have to disagree with your assessment of F2P in general.

    I'm a F2P advocate, just like SOE is, even though I often sub or go premium.  They know that success of a game is all about the long term, and F2P increases longevity of an MMO over P2P.  The hardcore players or those completely devoted to a game, ie. players who sub, need the f2p players to keep their game alive.  The additional money they earn from the F2P crowd pays for future development that the sub crowd needs as well as providing players to interact with, trade with, group with or to simply kill depending on the type of game it is.

    A very apparent symbiotic relationship exists between the p2p players and the f2p, and thankfully SOE has learned this.  Others will continue to follow suit as they see competitive alternatives to their games appear in the industry.

    Now, I believe much of what SOE has presented with EQN has been short-sighted, and will probably be drastically changed before launch.  I think the way destruction works will likely be one of those things changed, though we don't truly know how it even works now, so this is speculation.  

    I do agree though, EQ Next being both a console and F2P definitely is a recipe for disaster if the proper precautions aren't taken, moreso than any F2P game ever.


  • AlleinAllein San Diego, CAPosts: 1,656Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Strayfe
    Originally posted by Allein

    I do agree with you. Just so tired of all the hating on whatever game, genre, play style, etc. So many posts make huge assumptions about a game we know very little about and generalizations about players just to get the fire going. Hard to have intelligent conversations when most of the comments are missing logic and objectivity. F2P is needed to keep games going now, I'll sub if it is worth it, but I wouldn't want them to attempt to keep profitable without it. Annoying F2P griefers < game staying above water.

    I don't buy this at all.  For a game with a solid community, a virtual world aspect, and group-focused gameplay which does not pander to those looking for instant gratification, I would pay a $30 sub.  I would pay a $50 sub.  I may even consider paying a $100 sub, because at the end of the day, $3.33 a day for unlimited entertainment is dirt cheap and it would guarantee that the people who hop games, troll everything, bring the community down and then move on to the next big thing would be kept far away from this.

    I guarantee that I'm not alone.

    F2P uses marketing gimmicks, artificial roadblocks and shady business practices involving human psychology of reward and gratification to draw more money from gullible people who will then turn around and adamantly defend the business model for... reasons that escape me.

    The problem with making the argument that it's all down to personal preference is simply this: the people whose personal preference is virtual worlds with group content and a subscription fee are no longer having games made for us AT ALL, EVER.  Every.  Single.  Game.  is being released to cater to the instant gratification, console/twitch crowd and is being monetized to take advantage of the psychology of gamers in a really greedy, backwards way that is made all the more so because most people don't even realize the tactics being used to make them open their wallet and overpay for things that used to be available in subscription games for free.

    Of course businesses are going to use the F2P model.  They will do so because people are, unfortunately, stupid enough to fall for it and for every hundred players who pay nothing, you will get one crazed lunatic who will pay $20,000.00 for a F2P game if the developer gives the option to do so.  F2P games are not built for the free player.  They're built specifically to entice players to spend as much as possible with no ceiling, to create disparity, peer pressure and tension among the playerbase.  To create conflict by broadcasting cash shop items globally to shame others into seeing things they can't have without spending x * $5 per random gambling box.

    So yes, in a sense, the idea of a cooperative or competitive virtual world is, at its very core, impossible under the F2P business model, and it can not be possible without an investment and attachment by the players.

    EQ: Next will be a successful game, it will make SOE a lot of money.  Sadly, that is all that matters anymore.  There is no pride in the quality of the product, no passion in game development, no interest in creating something that is long lasting and valuable.  This game, and these types of games are a success in only one respect, money, and they are running the genre into the ground and corrupting it to attain their goals.

    You will see complaints from EQ (and other games like it) vets, the extremely vocal and passionate minority, because there is nothing new for us to play.  There is nothing being made that caters to the playstyles we enjoy.  There are no options.  There are no outlets.  We are reduced to playing decades old games (which have been changed in most respects to suit the same instant gratification demographic), and/or begging and pleading developers for the most minute and insignificant content types that remind us of what used to be, of the roots of the genre newer players take for granted, and the stories, friendships and adventures we built in them.

    This is not an argument about the financial success of a game, or the viability of a business model.  It's a condemnation and acknowledgement of the terrible side effects this paradigm shift in the MMO industry is bringing upon us.

    I went off topic a bit there, but suffice it to say, most of us who share my opinion are well aware that we can do absolutely nothing but watch the genre devolve and hope for a miracle at some point.  Naturally we're frustrated, and naturally we communicate in the only way we are able to show our frustration.

    The paradigm shifted long ago. There is no coming back, there is no miracle waiting around the corner. We can either accept it or check out. I'm standing on your side of the line, but I've had one foot over for quite a while.

    I've accepted and work with what is given. Luckily, if I don't like a game now, I don't have to waste any money on it. Doesn't make me a lower denominator or a horrible person/gamer, just playing the system like everyone else.

    While I agree money is the deciding factor on anything commercial, that doesn't mean a company can't have pride and produce something great. You or I might not like it, doesn't mean it isn't loved by others. Declaring something trash simply because it is F2P or cheap, isn't logical. GW2 is a great game (if you like what it offers) and has a better F2P/Cash Shop model then SOE. 

    Declaring people that like the F2P model or any other particular game model as less then those that prefer something else is also a poor choice. 

    I think EQ is long past it's prime, yet it is still trucking along because of F2P (I believe the $30+ servers weren't a hit). I grew bored with WoW years ago, but it seems millions joined and left since I did, still paying the same sub.

    Gaming is no longer reserved for the small demographic it was 10-15 years ago. And unfortunately today everyone wants everything now and for less. People are willing to spend spend spend if something appears free. Look at Candy Crush, they are rolling in the cash from a "free" game that millions are addicted to. Other companies would be stupid not to follow suit. Give the masses what they want and profit, that is the whole point.

    This sucks for those of us that want something more and will pay more, but we are the minority and no amount of complaining or naming calling is going to change that.

    You can't talk with your wallet anymore and frustration will get you no where but frustrated.

    I agree that EQN will be a hit and make them money. I am also hopeful that it allows them to keep the standards high as possible in today's market. So far, I've yet to see anything that hits me with fear. Things could change down the road, but right now, I'm patiently waiting and staying positive.

     

  • Burdoc101Burdoc101 Fort Campbell, KYPosts: 281Member

    Strayfe, I disagree with you that a game is dependent on a certain pay system. “For a game with a solid community, a virtual world aspect, and group-focused gameplay...” does not matter how many trolls or what type of pay system it has. That community and game will thrive because of the people that love the game and support it. And what is cheaper than dirt cheap is F2P.

    Your right though, a great game would deserve my interest and possibly my cash. I don’t think I would pay as much as you, but if the game was perfect maybe. I wish I knew what game you had such a bad time with, and I wonder if you have tried to re-visit it or see if the company/game/people have changed for the better?

     F2P is relatively a new concept that has been changing, evolving over the past few years. Companies have been testing people, pushing button to see how much they can suck out of us, but for the most part the communities of the games backlash set companies straight and have changed their policies. For example EQ1 and EQ2 had a mixed F2P game at one point. Locking certain races or classes until you paid a fee. Those caps are no longer there to my delight. Along with some other negative attributes that are gone now from the game.

    What a F2P model should be is just cosmetic assorted items and maybe convenience items, like more bag slots and such. I highly disagree with how SWTOR started their F2P by making you unlock HUD options. That was a huge mistake on their part and (correct me if I am wrong), but that pay to unlock is no longer there either. A F2P should never allow the players to buy to win. That would defeat the purpose of the game. In a recent beta update with A Mighty Quest for Epic Loot, they had a pay to win system that allowed players to buy creatures/upgrades that were way above their own level to beat other players of the same level. That is totally unfair to everyone else in the game. The community of course enraged by this and the developers listened and changed it with another patch.

    Just look at F2P history. It has been in development. Going through its own alpha, beta testing and SOE has a pretty good idea what will work and what won’t. If you look at their previous games EQ1, EQ2, Planetside 2 they have tested within those games to see what works with the free to play option. Planetside 2 is a great game. And I have yet to see an overpowered weapon, everything you can buy, you can definitely earn in the game and most of the detailed/helpful unlocks are only available by playing the game. The option to buy is cosmetic. When Planetside 2 first started I read a column stating that its earnings were from just 10% of the population. And as you can see it is still going strong. I don’t have the statistics or real data of how many people are playing and how many people are paying, but its enough to support the industry to have patches and even start the journey towards e-sports.

    F2P games in some ways have to broaden their target audience, even niche titles, in order to make their payment. A good game will never have to worry about that though. I said this earlier and I will say it again, the pay style of the game does not make or break a game. It is the game itself and the community. A good game with a great community will stand the test of time. I will admit a pay style can affect the game if its buy to win. That would just ruin any game. I don’t care how good it is.

    Even trolls can’t ruin a good game with a great community. Like I mentioned in my previous post. And as you have stated, trolls come and go. They get their fix and leave the game on to something else. That should not affect dedicated players (and from what I can tell), like you are. Which confuses me why an open community like F2P would hamper your mindset to play the game. If anything a community open like F2P will introduce intrigued players who have never played an MMO before. It will introduce children who will become the future of the gaming industry after we pass on. I was introduced to EQ 1 as a child playing on my dad’s account. I consider myself lucky enough to of had that experience or else I would not be typing this right now. And ever since that point I have seen the evolution of the MMO world and have played all types of great and bad games (in my opinion of course).

    Subscription based games are a dying breed, because when it comes down to it F2P is a cheaper game that can provide entertainment for them and possible their families. Paying 60 dollars for the title, the 14 subscription fee just to start up a regular subscription based title. I mean for myself that was the norm for a while that I accepted. But F2P is changing the norm. You are able to give it your own review instead of reading about it and not spend a dime doing so. And heck if you like the game you can keep playing it without worrying about ever spending a single penny for it. No one is ever holding a gun to the consumer to purchase items. And as you repeat over and over how the consumer is being psychologically twisted please give me an example. I do not believe any consumer base is stupid. I think that is an abstract opinion to make and I need more examples from you to convince me otherwise. Why is F2P a backwards way to you? And how does a company create a game without making a profit? They do need to entice people to buy something so that they and their families can eat and sleep under a roof. I don’t agree with pay to win, but I do agree with cosmetic or convenient buys in the game (as long as it does not affect the balance of said game). If this is done properly in a good game, the community that loves the game will buy stuff to support it. I go back to the 10% of Planetside 2.

    That 10% did not include people who paid 20000 or some other number. And there are people who do enjoy a game so much that they do spend that much or more on it. But that does not make them stupid. That is their money and their choice to do so. Only if it is harmful to themselves or others around them would I say differently.

    I don’t see how an advertisement from the company who made the game to buy something is shaming anyone into buying something or is causing peer pressure. Sure silly things like that may happen with little kids and their friends. But who owns the wallet? And maturity sees past anything of that nature. I have been off and on EQ 1 recently and I do see cash shop advertisements every time I log in. And I just as easily click them off. I have played with people that own cosmetic items that are cool looking to me and I would have to buy to appear in that way, but I never have felt peer pressured into buying it. Nor did I ever feel shamed that I did not own the magical golden goose hat. Not even once. I don’t feel like spending money on that so I won’t. I was never socially outcast by my guild either because of it. If a guild does require that, then that’s up to you, but I would think that’s shallow of them require something like that (but that’s my opinion). And if that has happened to you, I would love to see the example.

    I would also like for you to go into further detail why or how a F2P world (that does not have pay to win) would not be cooperative or competitive? The pay system should never influence the game in that manner. The game itself will present things for the players so it’s cooperative and competitive. The attachment will come from the enjoyment and time/energy spent in said game.

    As for EQN. You really need to watch the panel videos and interviews. You can see the passion in the developer’s eyes and voice. How quickly they are to come to defend the product they are making and enjoy. You can tell they love their job and are excited about it. I do not think for a moment that they are out to make a quick buck. They want to make game that they want to play. I think what they are attempting is to revitalize the MMO scene with new ideas. I do not see how they want to run it into the ground. And I am an EQ 1 vet. I did corpse runs. I got my epic 1.0. And I have de-leveled. I am tired of the hand holding that has been going on with MMOs lately. And maybe we will see an EQ3, but that’s not EQ Next. It’s completely different and I am okay with that. Sure I am not a fan of the art style, but I defiantly can look past it. For the world looks great and the mechanics/ideas sound awesome. They did give some pretty good reasons why they chose the art style and it is nice looking even though I am a fan of realism.

    I hope you can expand more on this, because this I believe is still on topic with EQN and with the original post. It’s about trolls, F2P and EQN.

  • kyssarikyssari Tipton, IAPosts: 142Member
    Originally posted by Strayfe
    Originally posted by Allein

    I do agree with you. Just so tired of all the hating on whatever game, genre, play style, etc. So many posts make huge assumptions about a game we know very little about and generalizations about players just to get the fire going. Hard to have intelligent conversations when most of the comments are missing logic and objectivity. F2P is needed to keep games going now, I'll sub if it is worth it, but I wouldn't want them to attempt to keep profitable without it. Annoying F2P griefers < game staying above water.

    The problem with making the argument that it's all down to personal preference is simply this: the people whose personal preference is virtual worlds with group content and a subscription fee are no longer having games made for us AT ALL, EVER.  Every.  Single.  Game.  is being released to cater to the instant gratification, console/twitch crowd and is being monetized to take advantage of the psychology of gamers in a really greedy, backwards way that is made all the more so because most people don't even realize the tactics being used to make them open their wallet and overpay for things that used to be available in subscription games for free.

    You know Final Fantasy XIV ARR is a new game that covers everything you just asked for yes? Virtual world, check - Group content, check - Subscription fee, check! Sub games may not be nearly as common as they used to be but they are still out there and still being produced. If your really that against f2p systems maybe you should just stay away from those games and stick to those sub only games that are still out there and/or still being made?

     

    Since we're going with the analogies so much heres another one for you. If you don't like the taste of something or it makes you sick, dont eat it...

  • st3v3b0st3v3b0 Gainesville, FLPosts: 147Member Uncommon

    Your lack of AI is what made me stop reading this posting because you simply are clueless.  I won't agree or disagree on the F2P front.  AI is much more present in this world than I believe you realize.  20+ years ago alone AI was created to out match humans in chess - a strategy game.  AI has come much further these days from classifying tanks based on satellite imagery to Google's self-driving vehicles.  

    While I do not think SOE (or rather StoryBricks) would go this far they very well could and if they did it would be messy for the players trying to go up against this AI.  AI can recall and learn in real-time these days with the processing power at its disposal.  So if setup properly the AI could beat you every time and then remember how it beat you so if you tried again with the same tactic you would lose even quicker.  This is what they even hinted at SOE Live when they said they could scale back the AI's intelligence so that it would not make the encounters impossible.

    TL;DR:  It is possible to have intelligent enough AI with today's technology.  Whether they will utilize it or not is the real question.

  • TibbzTibbz Houston, TXPosts: 619Member
    all the more reason to join a PvP server.... 

    image
  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member
    Originally posted by Strayfe

    That being said, steps will need to be taken by SOE to ensure that the playerbase they are pitching EQN toward doesn't steamroll their intended features and create an unplayable environment full of jerkwads.

    Look, it's a well-intentioned suggestion, hey devs, are we thinking about...

    And clearly, it's on the wrong message board. Somewhere an SOE dev might see it, perhaps?

    Here, it's only an elaborate slippery slope.

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • StrayfeStrayfe Los Angeles, CAPosts: 189Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by kyssari

    You know Final Fantasy XIV ARR is a new game that covers everything you just asked for yes? Virtual world, check - Group content, check - Subscription fee, check! Sub games may not be nearly as common as they used to be but they are still out there and still being produced. If your really that against f2p systems maybe you should just stay away from those games and stick to those sub only games that are still out there and/or still being made?

     

    Since we're going with the analogies so much heres another one for you. If you don't like the taste of something or it makes you sick, dont eat it...

    I'm aware, and I will be playing it and hoping that it will be my MMO for years to come.

    Regarding your analogy, it breaks down in one very simple way.  People -have- to eat, people don't -have- to play MMOs.

    Assuming I did have to play an MMO, I can't simply "not eat it", because the only type of "foods" being made are ones that I don't like the taste of.

    When the only thing in the world to eat is Sushi, and you don't like Sushi.  What do you do?  This is the state of MMORPGs right now.

    Everyone is making Sushi (except for one or two people), and if you don't like Sushi, you either don't eat, or you gulp it down and hate every moment while trying to tell SOMEBODY, ANYBODY, to stop making Sushi and try something else for a change.

    Everyone is making instant win, instant gratification, simple solo casual games which require no thought, no effort, no interaction, no strategy, no time and no planning.  If you want any of this in your game, your options are: play a 10+ year old game (that has probably been changed over the years into a no thought, no effort game -- see FFXI), play a game with limited developer support and barely anyone playing it, or try to get someone to make the kind of game you enjoy playing.

    Why is it that the MMORPG industry is the only one that seems to cower away from making titles for a small, niche audience?  There are expensive French restaurants that will NEVER cater to the slums.  They cost more, offer a higher quality service for fewer people and EVERYONE is okay with this because there are options.

    Where is my high quality French restaurant MMO?  I'll pay 5 times the current monthly sub for it.  Someone deliver. 

  • kyssarikyssari Tipton, IAPosts: 142Member
    Originally posted by Strayfe
    Originally posted by kyssari

    You know Final Fantasy XIV ARR is a new game that covers everything you just asked for yes? Virtual world, check - Group content, check - Subscription fee, check! Sub games may not be nearly as common as they used to be but they are still out there and still being produced. If your really that against f2p systems maybe you should just stay away from those games and stick to those sub only games that are still out there and/or still being made?

     

    Since we're going with the analogies so much heres another one for you. If you don't like the taste of something or it makes you sick, dont eat it...

    I'm aware, and I will be playing it and hoping that it will be my MMO for years to come.

    Regarding your analogy, it breaks down in one very simple way.  People -have- to eat, people don't -have- to play MMOs.

    Assuming I did have to play an MMO, I can't simply "not eat it", because the only type of "foods" being made are ones that I don't like the taste of.

    When the only thing in the world to eat is Sushi, and you don't like Sushi.  What do you do?  This is the state of MMORPGs right now.

    Everyone is making Sushi (except for one or two people), and if you don't like Sushi, you either don't eat, or you gulp it down and hate every moment while trying to tell SOMEBODY, ANYBODY, to stop making Sushi and try something else for a change.

    Everyone is making instant win, instant gratification, simple solo casual games which require no thought, no effort, no interaction, no strategy, no time and no planning.  If you want any of this in your game, your options are: play a 10+ year old game (that has probably been changed over the years into a no thought, no effort game -- see FFXI), play a game with limited developer support and barely anyone playing it, or try to get someone to make the kind of game you enjoy playing.

    Why is it that the MMORPG industry is the only one that seems to cower away from making titles for a small, niche audience?  There are expensive French restaurants that will NEVER cater to the slums.  They cost more, offer a higher quality service for fewer people and EVERYONE is okay with this because there are options.

    Where is my high quality French restaurant MMO?  I'll pay 5 times the current monthly sub for it.  Someone deliver. 

    Thats the problem right there. You DO have a choice of what to eat just as you DO have a choice of what MMOs to play. As you yourself even just verified, a brand new MMO that meets all your criteria did indeed just come out so you can't say they are not making those types of MMOs at all anymore because clearly they are and thus you clearly DO have a choice of what type of MMO to play. Those high price fancy french restaurants aren't all over the place and as common as other general restaurants but they are there, the same as sub games aren't as common as f2p/b2p games these days but they are still out there and still being made.

  • ReklawReklaw Am.Posts: 6,476Member Uncommon

    Perhaps first actually play the game before making a topic like this.

    Sorry just don't get it. As an experianced gamer I will Judge a game on what it actually delivers in a playable state. Sure I have my dreams and wishes, but SOE aint working for me, they are trying to bring a product to me. I might like their product or I might not.

    If you want to talk about the problems of EQN wait till you had your change to play the game and actually be able to talk about it's "problems"

  • mrjimorgmrjimorg Austin, TXPosts: 23Member

    I think you've brought up a valid concern. However, like many other people here I think you're conclusion that this is a fatal unsolvable issue is a bit premature. Making a game is more like throwing a pot than it is building a skyscraper- you need to throw something out there, play it, figure out what worked and what didn't, modify, play it again, repeat. You can't plan it ahead of time because there is no correct formula for 'fun'. While this issue is something they will have to address I'm sure that they have plans - some which will not work, some that might. They will adjust their strategy, and in the end they will come up with a solution. Meanwhile, they will come across many other daunting issues that will dwarf even this that we haven't even considered but would seen obvious in retrospect.

    I would say "Have some faith", but this is the same company that created the SW:NGE disaster. In the end, EQNext will definitely shake up an industry that needs some rattling. You mentioned that you're tired of the same ol' thing. This will be different, and even if you don't like it, I hope it will bring about something else more to your taste.

  • technineztechninez MANCHESTERPosts: 77Member
    Originally posted by Mischief
    Originally posted by donpopuki
    First you do realize the environments heal themselves over time right?

    You need to be more accepting different types of people that have different interests. I've meet plenty of jerks that shared my same interests. Now who is being an antisocial jerk here?

    I believe you might be looking at his point too simplistically.  Yes the environments heal over time, but that by no means takes away the ability of significant griefing.   For example, if the environments are destructible and you can fall into holes under the ground, what is to keep someone with malicious intent to destroy the ground underneath you while you fight a mob you have been hunting just to mess with you.   Now maybe it wont be as big of a problem as he says but there is certainly a cause for concern with what we know so far.

    just makes the world more real i think if people can do that, annoying yes but real and what would happen...

  • KoraxenKoraxen Orlando, FLPosts: 1Member

    Thank you for making this post Strayfe. I sure hope the folks at SOE read these forums.

     

    Here is my take, basically summarizing what you said, in a very simple way.

     

    Quite a few years ago, corporate people in suits discovered that there's money to be made in games. So, games began to cater to the widest possible audience. One thing led to another, and gaming became mainstream and super accessible. Enter the console gamers, f2p, twitch, etc.

     

    What the OP says is that EQN will attract many gamers who are accustomed to putting in minimal time/money investment into their games. And this won't improve the quality of the community. People who played EverQuest had a rich community, who invested time into the game and actually cared about it. The prospect of attracting flocks of new "lower quality" gamers, with their "different" mentality, just sounds dreadful. Many of these new people will undoubtedly contribute to the trolling, destruction, whatever you want to call it.

     

    We can then only hope that EQN is designed in such a way that these people don't last long. And I think that the most efficient way will be with serious in-game death penalties.

  • Beoelf21Beoelf21 Atascocita, TXPosts: 91Member
    Dear OP, you had a point with the F2P crowd,but the rest of your rant was kinda pointless. Destructable environments, action combat , and console gamers? I dont see how these things attract "bottom feeders".

    image
  • TorreyHTorreyH Santa Cruz, CAPosts: 42Member
    Originally posted by Strayfe

    The problem with making the argument that it's all down to personal preference is simply this: the people whose personal preference is virtual worlds with group content and a subscription fee are no longer having games made for us AT ALL, EVER.  Every.  Single.  Game.  is being released to cater to the instant gratification, console/twitch crowd and is being monetized to take advantage of the psychology of gamers in a really greedy, backwards way that is made all the more so because most people don't even realize the tactics being used to make them open their wallet and overpay for things that used to be available in subscription games for free.

    Of course businesses are going to use the F2P model.  They will do so because people are, unfortunately, stupid enough to fall for it and for every hundred players who pay nothing, you will get one crazed lunatic who will pay $20,000.00 for a F2P game if the developer gives the option to do so.  F2P games are not built for the free player.  They're built specifically to entice players to spend as much as possible with no ceiling, to create disparity, peer pressure and tension among the playerbase.  To create conflict by broadcasting cash shop items globally to shame others into seeing things they can't have without spending x * $5 per random gambling box.

    So yes, in a sense, the idea of a cooperative or competitive virtual world is, at its very core, impossible under the F2P business model, and it can not be possible without an investment and attachment by the players.

    EQ: Next will be a successful game, it will make SOE a lot of money.  Sadly, that is all that matters anymore.  There is no pride in the quality of the product, no passion in game development, no interest in creating something that is long lasting and valuable.  This game, and these types of games are a success in only one respect, money, and they are running the genre into the ground and corrupting it to attain their goals.

    You will see complaints from EQ (and other games like it) vets, the extremely vocal and passionate minority, because there is nothing new for us to play.  There is nothing being made that caters to the playstyles we enjoy.  There are no options.  There are no outlets.  We are reduced to playing decades old games (which have been changed in most respects to suit the same instant gratification demographic), and/or begging and pleading developers for the most minute and insignificant content types that remind us of what used to be, of the roots of the genre newer players take for granted, and the stories, friendships and adventures we built in them.

    This is not an argument about the financial success of a game, or the viability of a business model.  It's a condemnation and acknowledgement of the terrible side effects this paradigm shift in the MMO industry is bringing upon us.

    I went off topic a bit there, but suffice it to say, most of us who share my opinion are well aware that we can do absolutely nothing but watch the genre devolve and hope for a miracle at some point.  Naturally we're frustrated, and naturally we communicate in the only way we are able to show our frustration.

    I thought this was what you were trying to say, and I heartily agree.  All the focus on the graphics IS really missing the point, for a lot of us.  The big disappointment with EQN is that they are going for the mass-market FTP "action" crowd, rather than something for the old-school MMO players who remember EQ in its glory days.  As you say, we are simply off the radar, because it IS all about the money, and "real" MMO players are perceived as a niche market.  Vanguard was originally conceived as the "spiritual successor" to classic EverQuest.  THAT is the game many of us are still waiting for.  From all reports so far, with EQN the waiting will continue. 

  • ElikalElikal ValhallaPosts: 8,063Member
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by Brabbit1987

    I have to agree with the OP. These are all legitimate concerns that really need to be thought about.

    All the people here disagreeing or calling the OP names, needs to really grow up. I also see a lot of people are taking his points way out of context. If you read the entire thread, you know he pointed out that not many people who are considered higher up would keep the job working at fast food. Meaning the McDs workers he is talking about are the ones who never move on from it. The ones who do not have a proper education or aptitude to do something else.

    Also, people need to realize that saying someone is not as intelligent as another is in no way a personal attack. If Albert Einstein was still alive and told me I was not as intelligent as him, I would totally agree with him, because compared to him I am stupid. It's in now way a personal attack, for him it's just an undeniable truth. For me, it's also a undeniable truth. It doesn't matter if you hate it. It doesn't change facts.

    Your average McDs worker will not be as intelligent as your average lawyer or doctor. It's just extremely unlikely. Keep in mind, we are not talking about the teenager that is in college. We are talking about grown adults.

    Anyway, besides all of that, even the fans of this game really should be concerned with these issues. While it maybe to an extent speculative, it's still a legitimate concern that really should be thought about. I mean, acting like these issues will not be a problem is all fine and dandy, but that doesn't make the issues disappear.

    I personally am looking forward to this game a lot. That doesn't mean, I am not allowed to have concerns. Actually, having concerns is better then ignoring them. Those who ignore concerns are the ones who will be complaining in the end.

    Having concerns is one thing, creating an enemy out of other demographics is something else.

    What, we KNOW today's youth is rotten, much unlike in past days!

     

    "Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book."

    - Marcus Tullius Cicero, 55 AD

     

    image

    People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert

  • PiechunksPiechunks ProvincePosts: 136Member

    I think this is all for naught and that the breakable things will just be a small gimmick and not actually representative of most of the game.

    Until you can lay your hands on it and understand what it's about, it's just entirely speculation based on hype. 

     

     

  • ShauneepeakShauneepeak Biddeford, MEPosts: 421Member

    You are completely rational and not even over exaggerating on this. Honestly best example I can think of in regards to people taking a single feature and exploiting to ruin everyone else's fun. Is Battlefield 3, Operation Metro and "N003 Tubing" people take advantage of the small confined environment and use a weapon made for mid range combat and crowd control and simply turn it around and make whole squads of people spamming choke points with them making it impossible for the other teams to advance at all. That is why you see so many custom servers outright banning the grenade launchers on Operation Metro because if Trolls can find a way to ruin a game they will.

     

    EQ Next in theory sounds amazing but is just a recipe for disaster.

     

    Another good example closer to the MMO community are solid deployable items people will take advantage of these if an MMO has them and lay them in such a way to block other players progress and make it impossible to navigate around them.

     

    If a Troll can Troll they will Troll.

  • DullahanDullahan Posts: 2,053Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Shauneepeak

    You are completely rational and not even over exaggerating on this. Honestly best example I can think of in regards to people taking a single feature and exploiting to ruin everyone else's fun. Is Battlefield 3, Operation Metro and "N003 Tubing" people take advantage of the small confined environment and use a weapon made for mid range combat and crowd control and simply turn it around and make whole squads of people spamming choke points with them making it impossible for the other teams to advance at all. That is why you see so many custom servers outright banning the grenade launchers on Operation Metro because if Trolls can find a way to ruin a game they will.

     

    EQ Next in theory sounds amazing but is just a recipe for disaster.

     

    Another good example closer to the MMO community are solid deployable items people will take advantage of these if an MMO has them and lay them in such a way to block other players progress and make it impossible to navigate around them.

     

    If a Troll can Troll they will Troll.

    A+ analogy with operation metro in bf3.


  • LostarLostar Johnstown, PAPosts: 901Member
    The really just need to make it subscription based.....but they won't.
  • TaroganTarogan sacramento, CAPosts: 4Member

    The negative attitude and cynicism that you are showing with this post proves your point exactly. You are not looking at ways that the problem can be solved before release. No, the politicians route is taken. Say something won't work because a specific group of people are bad.

    There are a multitude of ways that this can be avoided. Having AI recognize which areas are man made and which are player made and then institute a penalty system for randomly destroying player made areas. Or, make it take an extremely long time to tear down so it can't happen overnight. The "owner" of that area then has a chance to contest the destruction, protect his territory, or kill the destroying player.

    Also, AI is ridiculously advanced nowadays, it will not take the level of sophistry that is used at MIT to build an AI capable of the fulfilling SOE's claims. Just lots of programmers.

    Instead of being part of the problem, one of the people that sets trollers off, or encourages them to troll, why not be an example. Show everyone what a good player looks like. Psychologists working on the LOL team have research that shows that people with positive attitudes win more games because their attitudes rub off on their teammates. The same is true of the MMO community. 

    Everquest Next might redefine gaming, it might not. Their graphic quality is lower so that they can do the destructible environment that means they are putting at least some sort of thought into this and I guarantee that they have a lot more experience and understanding of the player community (positive and negative) than you give them credit for. 

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Winter Park, FLPosts: 1,092Member
    Originally posted by Tarogan

    The negative attitude and cynicism that you are showing with this post proves your point exactly. You are not looking at ways that the problem can be solved before release. No, the politicians route is taken. Say something won't work because a specific group of people are bad.

    There are a multitude of ways that this can be avoided. Having AI recognize which areas are man made and which are player made and then institute a penalty system for randomly destroying player made areas. Or, make it take an extremely long time to tear down so it can't happen overnight. The "owner" of that area then has a chance to contest the destruction, protect his territory, or kill the destroying player.

    Also, AI is ridiculously advanced nowadays, it will not take the level of sophistry that is used at MIT to build an AI capable of the fulfilling SOE's claims. Just lots of programmers.

    Instead of being part of the problem, one of the people that sets trollers off, or encourages them to troll, why not be an example. Show everyone what a good player looks like. Psychologists working on the LOL team have research that shows that people with positive attitudes win more games because their attitudes rub off on their teammates. The same is true of the MMO community. 

    Everquest Next might redefine gaming, it might not. Their graphic quality is lower so that they can do the destructible environment that means they are putting at least some sort of thought into this and I guarantee that they have a lot more experience and understanding of the player community (positive and negative) than you give them credit for. 

    Nice to see someone on this thread that can be logical.  +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

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Winter Park, FLPosts: 1,092Member
    Originally posted by Strayfe
    Originally posted by kyssari

    I find your analogy of doctors and lawyers being more loyal and better community members so to speak because of the hard work and dedication they put into getting there kind of ironic. In pretty much every f2p game out there the people who don't spend a dime have to put far more work and time into getting to max lvl and advancing their character than any player who dishes out the cash for all the perks to make it easier, yet the F2P player is the worthless bottom feeder? While your entitled to your opinions of course you don't need to come off sounding like the Hitler of online gaming by declaring anyone and everyone who doesn't subscribe to a game is a worthless bottomfeeder that ruins every game they touch. Theres just as many bad people who subscribe and dish out the cash as there are those who don't spend a dime. I've also played numerous games that are f2p with plenty of people who play them without spending a dime and said games have a far better community than a lot of sub games. I'll take the Vanguard community over the WoW community any day. Regardless of the games business model every game will have its bad apples, the simple fact of wether they spend the money or not doesn't mean they are any better or worse a member of the community. More and more I see more subscribers that are worse people because they become selfentitled arrogant elitists who think simply because they dished out some cash they are better than everyone else and this is not the case at all. Sorry to say but throwing a little cash around doesn't make you a better person than anyone else.

     

    I've been laid up for over 7 years with a damaged spine, unable to get out hardly let alone work, surviving off of limited assistance, only really able to interact with people online but regardless of that I am apparently a worthless bottom feeder because I can't afford to dish out the cash on a regular basis. Thanks for clearing that up OP I appreciate it.

    You misunderstood my post.  Doctors and lawyers aren't inherently better members of the community.  They are more loyal to their professions, because of the time and effort and money for school they have spent to get where they are.  They are less likely to change careers.  Likewise, a gaming experience that requires time, effort and money is more likely to retain customers long term, because they have more invested in it.

    A free to play game is like a McDonalds.  There are more people working at McDonalds than there are lawyers and doctors in the world.  But the turnover is extremely high, the quality of people working at a fast food place is generally lower because the job is easier and has far less requirements.  And employees at a McDonalds aren't likely to work there over the long term.  Why is this difficult to understand?  This isn't a personal attack.  It's a simple fact.

    People are loyal to games they find fun.  As soon as the game is not fun, or they feel they can have more fun in another game, they leave.  They are attached to the characters they made, the people they met, the amount of fun they have.

    Nothing about EQN's information suggests they are making a game based on zero effort, or no play time.  They're making a game that offers new experiences both dev-created and player made, each time they log in.  A true sandbox experience, complete with free-roaming adventure and horizontal progression.  A game of adventure, full of features and mechanics never done before.

    And players will be able to log in and try the game for free, no risk at all.

    Your doom and gloom is based on zero logic.  If all you needed was a time-extensive, pay to play game, then you'd be sitting in EVE, playing it nonstop, and loving every minute of it.  But here you are, on the EQN forum, complaining that the devs aren't creating a game specifically tailored to your personal tastes.

    As others have said, your money is not on the line with EQN.  Theirs is.  They don't just want to make a fun game because they're gamers too, they want to make a fun game because their paychecks and careers depend on it being fun and successful.  To suggest they're making "mistakes", just because YOU don't like something, is about as comical as anything can possibly be.

    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

  • TelilTelil telfordPosts: 282Member

    I think we can be really Naive sometimes.

    Do we really believe that everything is destructible? of course it isn't! you will only be able to destroy what they want you to destroy.

    Bottom feeders? you are kidding right? from that comment your whole argument fell apart. i am an MMO fan, friends i know are FPS fans. it's all down to personal preference and no school is above the other. If FPS fans come and play the game and its not for them, they will leave and play what they prefer.

    SOE are putting a lot of money and effort into this game and they for every forum discussion we have...they have already sat around a table and discussed the same thing.

    I am not as lucky as some of you, i have only read what the interent has and only saw the videos recently released. I have really not heard or saw enough of the game to be able to make a proper judgment. All i can do is guess...pretty much the same as you are doing.

  • TelilTelil telfordPosts: 282Member

    reading through more of this thread i have to ask!

    Are we really talking about intelegence while comparing ourselves to people with lower intelect that work at McDonalds? What about the retired guy that cleans for something to keep him busy? he used to... and still does own several company's that make a global profit of 9 Billion per anum.

    If we are going to talk about intelect we should at the very absolute least....show some!

Sign In or Register to comment.