Howdy, Stranger!

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

Restarting Everquest from scratch. 6 years till expected release. Why this franchise won't go away

135

Comments

  • SlothnChunkSlothnChunk Member UncommonPosts: 788
    edited December 2015
    Sovrath said:
     If you were lining up to sell the Everquest franchise what would you do? You would 'do no harm' to the franchise; and why Everquest Next has gone dark.  You would also satisfy the existing hardcore base; thus content released in late 2015 for both Everquest and Everquest Next.

    So they've done what I would argue you would do in anticipation of seeking a buyer for a franchise.


    I just don't see how two old games are a great investment. Though in truth it's the name brand that is worth more. However, Any number of companies could have bought Sony Entertainment but they didn't. heck, An asian company bought cryptic in order to take advantage of what they were doing. 

    Why not buy a game franchise with huge name recognition?

    And though I agree, a company wouldn't want to harm the brand, pumping money into two old games isn't really going to make them any more attractive. The only thing I can think is that they might want to bolster the brand with new exciting games. Well, provided they are capable of making "new exciting games".
    Two existing MMOs with rabid and significant hardcore player-bases are a fantastic investment. You don't have to spend much to maintain an existing MMO like that while providing small, periodic content updates (not even full blown expansions).  That has dollar signs written all over it.

    Everquest is a big name in the MMO world so not harming the brand while simultaneously satisfying the base is exactly what you do to set up a franchise like Everquest up for sale.
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,070

    And if EQN didn't meet hype/expectations, not only would you lose the tens of millions spent completing EQN, the franchise would be damaged as well and drop in value.

    So if you wanted to make the most money selling off Everquest you would do what Daybreak is doing; satisfy the base with the existing two MMOs with small investments with large returns, not gambling the tens of millions needed to complete EQN as announced in 2013 in a very competitive and over-saturated MMO market, and doing nothing to damage the franchise (which included going dark on EQN).
    Yeah but we don't really know how "large" these returns are. I can't imagine the original EQ has a large playerbase. EQ 2 I can see having more bang for the buck but not huge.

    It seems to me that if one really wanted to make money as a goal they wouldn't invest in an old game company with old games.

    And keep a team working on a game that they have no intention of releasing. And of course moving people from Landmark to Everquest next.

    All they would have to do is let the people go, say that they are going to concentrate on bolstering their current titles and they would save a lot of money and not hurt the franchise one bit other than disappoint some die hard fans.



  • reeereeereeereee Member UncommonPosts: 1,636
    Sovrath said:
     If you were lining up to sell the Everquest franchise what would you do? You would 'do no harm' to the franchise; and why Everquest Next has gone dark.  You would also satisfy the existing hardcore base; thus content released in late 2015 for both Everquest and Everquest Next.

    So they've done what I would argue you would do in anticipation of seeking a buyer for a franchise.


    I just don't see how two old games are a great investment. Though in truth it's the name brand that is worth more. However, Any number of companies could have bought Sony Entertainment but they didn't. heck, An asian company bought cryptic in order to take advantage of what they were doing. 

    Why not buy a game franchise with huge name recognition?

    And though I agree, a company wouldn't want to harm the brand, pumping money into two old games isn't really going to make them any more attractive. The only thing I can think is that they might want to bolster the brand with new exciting games. Well, provided they are capable of making "new exciting games".
    Two existing MMOs with rabid and significant hardcore player-bases are a fantastic investment. You don't have to spend much to maintain an existing MMO like that while providing small, periodic content updates (not even full blown expansions).  That has dollar signs written all over it.

    Everquest is a big name in the MMO world so not harming the brand while simultaneously satisfying the base is exactly what you do to set up a franchise like Everquest up for sale.
    Everquest hasn't been relevant for 11 years now.  It's a big name among aging MMO vets but means little to the vast majority of players.  The only people it would be particularly valuable to would be indie devs (who don't have a lot of money) or perhaps mobile developers looking for any angle to differentiate their games in an extremely crowded market.
  • goboygogoboygo Member RarePosts: 2,066

    EQNext was 100% theory, nothing in the pipeline, the only assets they had were Landmark.  There was nothing but Smeadlys hype.  There was no money to make it, they were banking on Landmark or H1Z1 to fund it, to do something to put them in a position to make EQNext.  There is no development on Landmark happening anymore, so when that thing died so did any hope of EQnext in the foreseeable future.

    That project is a start from scratch project because it never existed in the first place.

    That's my theory anyways.

  • AlleinAllein Member RarePosts: 2,088
    edited December 2015
    Usually, around youtube, A title would have "OFFICIAL" gameplay trailer or cinematic trailer then you would head to website and see the release and payment methods. EQN already showed previews of gameplay twice in SOE live 2013 and 2014. Since they were in open developement. Then they went to closed developement until next year i predict at around SOE live 2016 they would have good news or bad. Im thinking good news. So open, closed then open throughout the process.

    Landmark pre-dated voxel farm or the idea of Landmark did. The Tech came after they decided they were going to give the green light for it. numerous sources including DGs word that back in the day Landmark was blocky much more akin to minecraft.

    Miguel C.'s Voxel Farm came into being 2011. So im guessing 2010 Landmark was thought up.
    I'm assuming you don't follow gaming closely and or haven't been doing so very long if your introduction to games is youtube vids at/near launch.

    Can't think of one AAA mmo or heck even a low end one that didn't have a beta or hype in advance.

    We don't know what they showed of EQN at SOE Live(s). As it was either live or pre-scripted, no proof that it was actually "EQN" instead of a tech demo. Although clearly they have assets.

    Again, as far as Landmark, do you have any source (links) that it was thought up so long ago?

    From what I've seen, the blocky/voxel concept was at least 2012 after the 2010 concept was scrapped, but Landmark as in a stand a lone game didn't come until VF and seeing how easy it would be for fans to use it as well. Voxel use =/= Landmark, it is a by product of them using the tech for EQN itself.

    Also, what was your previous user name? Is it a secret for some reason?
  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Sovrath said:

    And if EQN didn't meet hype/expectations, not only would you lose the tens of millions spent completing EQN, the franchise would be damaged as well and drop in value.

    So if you wanted to make the most money selling off Everquest you would do what Daybreak is doing; satisfy the base with the existing two MMOs with small investments with large returns, not gambling the tens of millions needed to complete EQN as announced in 2013 in a very competitive and over-saturated MMO market, and doing nothing to damage the franchise (which included going dark on EQN).
    Yeah but we don't really know how "large" these returns are. I can't imagine the original EQ has a large playerbase. EQ 2 I can see having more bang for the buck but not huge.

    It seems to me that if one really wanted to make money as a goal they wouldn't invest in an old game company with old games.

    And keep a team working on a game that they have no intention of releasing. And of course moving people from Landmark to Everquest next.

    All they would have to do is let the people go, say that they are going to concentrate on bolstering their current titles and they would save a lot of money and not hurt the franchise one bit other than disappoint some die hard fans.
    Firstly Columbus Nova is in the business of making money, as they invested in "an old game company with old games" then something is wrong with your math.

    Secondly there are more people playing EQ/EQ2 than you think and of those the fraction playing on TLE or Progression servers are all paying $15 a month, every month for the privilege, this is in addition to any money they are spending on the in game shop.  Personally I think that throughout the last few years these two games have been in profit and have been subsidizing the development of the 'new' games.

    Landmark was a spin off from EQ:N, the code base was pretty much identical all the way through until the decision to 'freeze' Landmark development and 'focus' on EQ:N.  Since that announcement we have seen some limited development of Landmark and no news about EQ:N other than a statement of success made about internal combat testing.  There is one team for EQ:N and Landmark not two.

    While we do not have internal revenue breakdowns my guess is that EQ/EQ2 still produce more revenue than H1Z1, PS2 and DC Universe.

    Finally DBG games seem to have three products in development:
    1. Landmark, supposedly frozen but still getting patches.
    2. EQ:N, supposedly in full steam development but gone totally dark with many saying its vaporware.
    3. An unnamed but mentioned 'new' project.
    My guess is that the 'new' project will be the next big announcement and Landmark will trickle on with EQ:N fading into obscurity.
  • SlothnChunkSlothnChunk Member UncommonPosts: 788
    Sovrath said:

    And if EQN didn't meet hype/expectations, not only would you lose the tens of millions spent completing EQN, the franchise would be damaged as well and drop in value.

    So if you wanted to make the most money selling off Everquest you would do what Daybreak is doing; satisfy the base with the existing two MMOs with small investments with large returns, not gambling the tens of millions needed to complete EQN as announced in 2013 in a very competitive and over-saturated MMO market, and doing nothing to damage the franchise (which included going dark on EQN).
    Yeah but we don't really know how "large" these returns are. I can't imagine the original EQ has a large playerbase. EQ 2 I can see having more bang for the buck but not huge.

    It seems to me that if one really wanted to make money as a goal they wouldn't invest in an old game company with old games.

    And keep a team working on a game that they have no intention of releasing. And of course moving people from Landmark to Everquest next.

    All they would have to do is let the people go, say that they are going to concentrate on bolstering their current titles and they would save a lot of money and not hurt the franchise one bit other than disappoint some die hard fans.
    No the exact opposite is true.  The current MMO field is saturated with nothing new breaking out among the pack in years.  Even Blizzard looked around and decided to cancel Titan.

    Everquest and Everquest 2 are profitable and require little investment to remain so. On the other-hand, investing in a new MMO in today's atmosphere is a huge gamble and a great way to lose a lot of money.

    In Daybreak's case, a new MMO is a huge gamble (especially when you remember their parent company CN has zero experience developing MMOs) which would have required tens of millions to be spent, a new Everquest game could and likely would take players (and revenue) away from the existing two profitable MMOs (would cannibalize their own player-base...something an investment company would avoid like the plague), and if the game isn't a huge success the Everquest franchise as a brand would be damage.

    That's exactly why they aren't working on an Everquest Next as announced by SOE in 2013.
  • SlothnChunkSlothnChunk Member UncommonPosts: 788
    Sovrath said:

    And if EQN didn't meet hype/expectations, not only would you lose the tens of millions spent completing EQN, the franchise would be damaged as well and drop in value.

    So if you wanted to make the most money selling off Everquest you would do what Daybreak is doing; satisfy the base with the existing two MMOs with small investments with large returns, not gambling the tens of millions needed to complete EQN as announced in 2013 in a very competitive and over-saturated MMO market, and doing nothing to damage the franchise (which included going dark on EQN).
    Yeah but we don't really know how "large" these returns are. I can't imagine the original EQ has a large playerbase. EQ 2 I can see having more bang for the buck but not huge.

    It seems to me that if one really wanted to make money as a goal they wouldn't invest in an old game company with old games.

    And keep a team working on a game that they have no intention of releasing. And of course moving people from Landmark to Everquest next.

    All they would have to do is let the people go, say that they are going to concentrate on bolstering their current titles and they would save a lot of money and not hurt the franchise one bit other than disappoint some die hard fans.
    Firstly Columbus Nova is in the business of making money, as they invested in "an old game company with old games" then something is wrong with your math.

    Secondly there are more people playing EQ/EQ2 than you think and of those the fraction playing on TLE or Progression servers are all paying $15 a month, every month for the privilege, this is in addition to any money they are spending on the in game shop.  Personally I think that throughout the last few years these two games have been in profit and have been subsidizing the development of the 'new' games.

    Landmark was a spin off from EQ:N, the code base was pretty much identical all the way through until the decision to 'freeze' Landmark development and 'focus' on EQ:N.  Since that announcement we have seen some limited development of Landmark and no news about EQ:N other than a statement of success made about internal combat testing.  There is one team for EQ:N and Landmark not two.

    While we do not have internal revenue breakdowns my guess is that EQ/EQ2 still produce more revenue than H1Z1, PS2 and DC Universe.

    Finally DBG games seem to have three products in development:
    1. Landmark, supposedly frozen but still getting patches.
    2. EQ:N, supposedly in full steam development but gone totally dark with many saying its vaporware.
    3. An unnamed but mentioned 'new' project.
    My guess is that the 'new' project will be the next big announcement and Landmark will trickle on with EQ:N fading into obscurity.
    My thoughts exactly on EQN.  And that 'new' project is more than likely a tablet/mobile game.  That would be the safest bet for an investor who has never invested in nor been active in MMO development.  And Daybreak's parent company is CN, an investment companyInvestment companies go for the most return on money spent; in this case that would be a mobile game vs. a huge risk MMO.
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,070

    No the exact opposite is true.  The current MMO field is saturated with nothing new breaking out among the pack in years.  Even Blizzard looked around and decided to cancel Titan.

    Everquest and Everquest 2 are profitable and require little investment to remain so. On the other-hand, investing in a new MMO in today's atmosphere is a huge gamble and a great way to lose a lot of money.


    No disagreement as far as releasing a new mmo yet why keep up the charade? All they had to do was announce it was canceled yet they still employ people who are working on it. Why?

    And the best time to announce it was canceled would have been when they took over as many people already thought it would be canceled. yet they insist they are still working on it. So again, why?





  • SlothnChunkSlothnChunk Member UncommonPosts: 788
    edited December 2015
    Sovrath said:

    No the exact opposite is true.  The current MMO field is saturated with nothing new breaking out among the pack in years.  Even Blizzard looked around and decided to cancel Titan.

    Everquest and Everquest 2 are profitable and require little investment to remain so. On the other-hand, investing in a new MMO in today's atmosphere is a huge gamble and a great way to lose a lot of money.


    No disagreement as far as releasing a new mmo yet why keep up the charade? All they had to do was announce it was canceled yet they still employ people who are working on it. Why?

    And the best time to announce it was canceled would have been when they took over as many people already thought it would be canceled. yet they insist they are still working on it. So again, why?


     When CN bought SOE in early 2015, it wasn't likely able to determine the status of EQN and therefore unable to make a decision on it.  At the time Landmark still appeared to be some sort of testing ground; so they likely looked towards it and made their decision after a few months of analyzing it.

    And they keep up the charade in order to keep the Everquest brand relevant for sale.  Those employees are still 'working on it' as the official story otherwise the reaction would be catastrophic for the Everquest brand.  The last thing you would want to do for a franchise you're looking to sell is announce years of development and hype resulted in nothing but cancellation and money wasted (now come buy the Everquest brand!).  Talk about an instant devaluation in a gaming brand.
  • ArchlyteArchlyte Member RarePosts: 1,405
    I think they are damaging the brand among active players and causing it to go further and further in to obscurity and time for everyone else. It's not like it was a giant thing in culture once WoW hit, and it's just drifting more and more into the dustbin of history. 

    If it gets released it will look like a Final Fantasy Lo-Rez tribute with an old style logo. I can't imagine tons of hype for such a thing. 
    MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
  • SlothnChunkSlothnChunk Member UncommonPosts: 788
    Archlyte said:
    I think they are damaging the brand among active players and causing it to go further and further in to obscurity and time for everyone else. It's not like it was a giant thing in culture once WoW hit, and it's just drifting more and more into the dustbin of history. 

    If it gets released it will look like a Final Fantasy Lo-Rez tribute with an old style logo. I can't imagine tons of hype for such a thing. 
    The active Everquest player-base just received content recently; both Everquest and Everquest 2.  So new content for these existing players far outweighs another month or whatever of complete silence on EQN (what's another month since it's been an extended period anyways?).

    You have to remember even Blizzard decided to cancel development on another MMO.  It's simply a bad time to try to create the next big thing; you're more than likely going to fail.  And on top of that, if you have existing MMOs, something too similar to those could simply move player-base from one game to another.  Fracturing and then cannibalizing your player-base is a great way to lose a lot of money (again, Blizzard saw this with any new MMO...it would take away from WoW and simply be counterproductive).
  • ArchlyteArchlyte Member RarePosts: 1,405
    Archlyte said:
    I think they are damaging the brand among active players and causing it to go further and further in to obscurity and time for everyone else. It's not like it was a giant thing in culture once WoW hit, and it's just drifting more and more into the dustbin of history. 

    If it gets released it will look like a Final Fantasy Lo-Rez tribute with an old style logo. I can't imagine tons of hype for such a thing. 
    The active Everquest player-base just received content recently; both Everquest and Everquest 2.  So new content for these existing players far outweighs another month or whatever of complete silence on EQN (what's another month since it's been an extended period anyways?).

    You have to remember even Blizzard decided to cancel development on another MMO.  It's simply a bad time to try to create the next big thing; you're more than likely going to fail.  And on top of that, if you have existing MMOs, something too similar to those could simply move player-base from one game to another.  Fracturing and then cannibalizing your player-base is a great way to lose a lot of money (again, Blizzard saw this with any new MMO...it would take away from WoW and simply be counterproductive).
    Whatever the reason (and I agree with what you listed) don't you think that EQ is kind of falling into game history and becoming less the kind of thing that newer players are going to be excited about based on brand? The appearance and overall shtick of EQN isn't anything that you can put on a theater screen and have the audience be stoked about. 
    MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
  • SlothnChunkSlothnChunk Member UncommonPosts: 788
    Archlyte said:
    Archlyte said:
    I think they are damaging the brand among active players and causing it to go further and further in to obscurity and time for everyone else. It's not like it was a giant thing in culture once WoW hit, and it's just drifting more and more into the dustbin of history. 

    If it gets released it will look like a Final Fantasy Lo-Rez tribute with an old style logo. I can't imagine tons of hype for such a thing. 
    The active Everquest player-base just received content recently; both Everquest and Everquest 2.  So new content for these existing players far outweighs another month or whatever of complete silence on EQN (what's another month since it's been an extended period anyways?).

    You have to remember even Blizzard decided to cancel development on another MMO.  It's simply a bad time to try to create the next big thing; you're more than likely going to fail.  And on top of that, if you have existing MMOs, something too similar to those could simply move player-base from one game to another.  Fracturing and then cannibalizing your player-base is a great way to lose a lot of money (again, Blizzard saw this with any new MMO...it would take away from WoW and simply be counterproductive).
    Whatever the reason (and I agree with what you listed) don't you think that EQ is kind of falling into game history and becoming less the kind of thing that newer players are going to be excited about based on brand? The appearance and overall shtick of EQN isn't anything that you can put on a theater screen and have the audience be stoked about. 
    I don't think the Everquest brand is either stronger or weaker than it was a year or two ago.  Perfect time to sell the franchise if you ask me.
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 16,462
    Archlyte said:
    I think they are damaging the brand among active players and causing it to go further and further in to obscurity and time for everyone else. It's not like it was a giant thing in culture once WoW hit, and it's just drifting more and more into the dustbin of history. 

    If it gets released it will look like a Final Fantasy Lo-Rez tribute with an old style logo. I can't imagine tons of hype for such a thing. 
    I do  agree somewhat because the majority of gamer's came out during WOW's era and have little to no connection with the Everquest series.So you are right,they are not waiting frantically,there is no large market waiting to make DB multi millions.

    The game is not even a part of their cash flow,that's why it has been an on and off again venture.They had to make expansions for EQ1/2 then if some free time get on EQN.

    The real sad part of it all are all those million plus supporters of H1Z1 who have NOT got a fair shake on EFFORT from SOE/DB since they grabbed all that initial money.Or perhaps even worse are the supporters of PS2 they likely wonder if the game has even 1 person working on anything.


    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 16,462
    I had to refresh myself on this whole sellout/takeover idea.
    Smedley's goal was to branch out into Microsoft and the Xbox and mobile,he did not liked being tied down to SOE.He saw a much bigger market if only he could branch out,so this DB was in his opinion a great move.

    I have no idea if PS2 ever got the console release,i doubt it,but i have a hunch this team is working on something like perhaps a mobile app/game and that EQN may yet again be on the back burner.This will be an ongoing trend with EQN,they will only do spot duty on the game in between cash flow ventures.

    I am totally surprised i have not seen or heard of anything but i guess the two expansions for EQ1 and EQ2 were suppose to be the end of the year cash flow.I expect something else to come out long before a rushed entry into EQN,who knows maybe even a moba.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • KirzanKirzan Member UncommonPosts: 28
    edited December 2015
    I believe they're either scrapping it or very much redefining it. Landmark was EQN's engine alpha. It was scrapped and left for the crows when they either found it: A) Satisfying enough. B ) Completely terrible. Since most of the feedback was on side B, I'm willing to bet they went with that. I started MMOs back in Ruins of Kunark. That's when I got my own MMO account for the first time. After playing Landmark, I vowed to not get hyped about EQN anymore, if that was to be EQN's "world interaction" and combat.

    I will agree that Daybreak's "more modern" stance might be a good thing... or a very bad thing. I can't help but imagine the next EverQuest title being a mobile money grab. It certainly counters the argument: "Ok, so people who play our EverQuest titles right now, probably don't have the best machines. How do we make a fully 3D world, with complex graphical features, that's also voxel based, for these old machines?" The answer is: Don't. Make a phone game. Your grand-parents have a smartphone. Your aunt loves to post them tapping game scores on Facebook.

    They have to make a sandbox. There has been too much time and money spent on this for it to be another RIFT, or another Secret World, where the entire game hangs on one feature, and every other feature being "meh, your standard themepark". It needs to bring back what has been lost to MMO Gaming as a whole, since the "WoW clones": Exploration. But it needs to be done right. Zones need to be cool. I need to enter a place, be surprised, and go: "Whoaaaaa... :open_mouth: " the same way I felt when I explored EverQuest, and the same zones in EQ2.
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,070
    Sovrath said:

    No the exact opposite is true.  The current MMO field is saturated with nothing new breaking out among the pack in years.  Even Blizzard looked around and decided to cancel Titan.

    Everquest and Everquest 2 are profitable and require little investment to remain so. On the other-hand, investing in a new MMO in today's atmosphere is a huge gamble and a great way to lose a lot of money.


    No disagreement as far as releasing a new mmo yet why keep up the charade? All they had to do was announce it was canceled yet they still employ people who are working on it. Why?

    And the best time to announce it was canceled would have been when they took over as many people already thought it would be canceled. yet they insist they are still working on it. So again, why?


     When CN bought SOE in early 2015, it wasn't likely able to determine the status of EQN and therefore unable to make a decision on it.  At the time Landmark still appeared to be some sort of testing ground; so they likely looked towards it and made their decision after a few months of analyzing it.

    And they keep up the charade in order to keep the Everquest brand relevant for sale.  Those employees are still 'working on it' as the official story otherwise the reaction would be catastrophic for the Everquest brand.  The last thing you would want to do for a franchise you're looking to sell is announce years of development and hype resulted in nothing but cancellation and money wasted (now come buy the Everquest brand!).  Talk about an instant devaluation in a gaming brand.
    I think that's pretty plausible but if they are going to sell it they need to sell it sooner rather than later. It's not like this is a fine wine and as the months/year(s) go buy it's going to get more attractive to possible buyers.





  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 7,746
    Mendel said:
    Nanfoodle said:
    All I know is DGC told us 2015 was going to be the year of EQN, not sure what that means with 2 weeks left in the year and as far as I can see, not any new info to mention. 
    I think the 'Year of EQ:N' pronouncement was made by the SOE employees before they were leashed by changes Daybreak might have made.  At least, it is beginning to look that the employees that were held over from SOE were hell bent to continue the path.  They continued the EQ:N message, without input from the new Daybreak power players.  Now, many of those SOE employees are gone, maybe replaced, maybe not.  So, the 'Year of EQ:N' announcement may have come entirely from Dave, and may not be indicative of Daybreak's plans.

    ----------
    I do think the silence may be a good thing for EQ:N.  There was so much information floating around in the customer base, most of it speculation and opinion.  The project was mismanaged, causing expectations to run wild.  A 'black out' is one way to let some of the rampant expectations to fade, allowing them the opportunity to rename the project and reintroduce it to a the market, hoping to keep a more proactive stance on information flow in the future.
    No it was after, was around Jan/Feb of 2015... about the same time this pod cast came out.




  • azarhalazarhal Member RarePosts: 1,351
    Nanfoodle said:
    Mendel said:
    Nanfoodle said:
    All I know is DGC told us 2015 was going to be the year of EQN, not sure what that means with 2 weeks left in the year and as far as I can see, not any new info to mention. 
    I think the 'Year of EQ:N' pronouncement was made by the SOE employees before they were leashed by changes Daybreak might have made.  At least, it is beginning to look that the employees that were held over from SOE were hell bent to continue the path.  They continued the EQ:N message, without input from the new Daybreak power players.  Now, many of those SOE employees are gone, maybe replaced, maybe not.  So, the 'Year of EQ:N' announcement may have come entirely from Dave, and may not be indicative of Daybreak's plans.

    ----------
    I do think the silence may be a good thing for EQ:N.  There was so much information floating around in the customer base, most of it speculation and opinion.  The project was mismanaged, causing expectations to run wild.  A 'black out' is one way to let some of the rampant expectations to fade, allowing them the opportunity to rename the project and reintroduce it to a the market, hoping to keep a more proactive stance on information flow in the future.
    No it was after, was around Jan/Feb of 2015... about the same time this pod cast came out.


    That video is dated Feb 4th, that's 2 days after the announcement that Daybreak was sold and DG lost his job (that was announced on Feb 11th).


  • SyndromofaDownSyndromofaDown Member UncommonPosts: 325
    Allein said:
    Usually, around youtube, A title would have "OFFICIAL" gameplay trailer or cinematic trailer then you would head to website and see the release and payment methods. EQN already showed previews of gameplay twice in SOE live 2013 and 2014. Since they were in open developement. Then they went to closed developement until next year i predict at around SOE live 2016 they would have good news or bad. Im thinking good news. So open, closed then open throughout the process.

    Landmark pre-dated voxel farm or the idea of Landmark did. The Tech came after they decided they were going to give the green light for it. numerous sources including DGs word that back in the day Landmark was blocky much more akin to minecraft.

    Miguel C.'s Voxel Farm came into being 2011. So im guessing 2010 Landmark was thought up.
    I'm assuming you don't follow gaming closely and or haven't been doing so very long if your introduction to games is youtube vids at/near launch.

    Can't think of one AAA mmo or heck even a low end one that didn't have a beta or hype in advance.

    We don't know what they showed of EQN at SOE Live(s). As it was either live or pre-scripted, no proof that it was actually "EQN" instead of a tech demo. Although clearly they have assets.

    Again, as far as Landmark, do you have any source (links) that it was thought up so long ago?

    From what I've seen, the blocky/voxel concept was at least 2012 after the 2010 concept was scrapped, but Landmark as in a stand a lone game didn't come until VF and seeing how easy it would be for fans to use it as well. Voxel use =/= Landmark, it is a by product of them using the tech for EQN itself.

    Also, what was your previous user name? Is it a secret for some reason?
    Mmorpg's are probably different but what did we hear from Fallout 3 or the Witcher 3? I didn't see anything of those games besides the usual concepts and screenshots with 1 gameplay video or 2. 

    DG stated they attempted to build Landmark with blocks 'cause later when Voxel Farm was contracted he stated "...Boy [Landmark] had it rough."

    My previous name was Amx23 i was on the "Everquest Next will turn the genre upside down" train and i spent a lot of time sometimes hours into putting out 6 paragraph posts in this forum :pleased: 
  • SyndromofaDownSyndromofaDown Member UncommonPosts: 325

    Kirzan said:
    I believe they're either scrapping it or very much redefining it. Landmark was EQN's engine alpha. It was scrapped and left for the crows when they either found it: A) Satisfying enough. B ) Completely terrible. Since most of the feedback was on side B, I'm willing to bet they went with that. I started MMOs back in Ruins of Kunark. That's when I got my own MMO account for the first time. After playing Landmark, I vowed to not get hyped about EQN anymore, if that was to be EQN's "world interaction" and combat.

    I will agree that Daybreak's "more modern" stance might be a good thing... or a very bad thing. I can't help but imagine the next EverQuest title being a mobile money grab. It certainly counters the argument: "Ok, so people who play our EverQuest titles right now, probably don't have the best machines. How do we make a fully 3D world, with complex graphical features, that's also voxel based, for these old machines?" The answer is: Don't. Make a phone game. Your grand-parents have a smartphone. Your aunt loves to post them tapping game scores on Facebook.

    They have to make a sandbox. There has been too much time and money spent on this for it to be another RIFT, or another Secret World, where the entire game hangs on one feature, and every other feature being "meh, your standard themepark". It needs to bring back what has been lost to MMO Gaming as a whole, since the "WoW clones": Exploration. But it needs to be done right. Zones need to be cool. I need to enter a place, be surprised, and go: "Whoaaaaa... :open_mouth: " the same way I felt when I explored EverQuest, and the same zones in EQ2.
    I think they are in the think tank of doing either one or the other. But yes i the franchise will live on in some form or another. I couldn't believe how many people subscribed to EQOA on the playstation 2 something around 80k concurrently which for a console game back in 2003 was huge. Champions of Norrath another playstation 2 online game as well. The sequel of that game Champions:Return of Arms scored 77 on metacrtic with an 8.5 user score. The sales of that was .1 or 100k in sales for the ps2. So they have options with EQNext and at this point and  we never saw something that hurt us anyway. Much like Project Titan which was black boxed the entire time...

    As for exploration. They have boldly stated Next will have a larger world map than all the zones of EQ1 and EQ2 combined. Smedley tweeted their forgelight engine has had a possible upgrade that will allow for 64km by 64km in area size. But that is now confirmed for a pipe dream i know cause H1Z1 was promised a bigger map but never came into fruition.
  • azarhalazarhal Member RarePosts: 1,351
    edited December 2015
    As for exploration. They have boldly stated Next will have a larger world map than all the zones of EQ1 and EQ2 combined. Smedley tweeted their forgelight engine has had a possible upgrade that will allow for 64km by 64km in area size. But that is now confirmed for a pipe dream i know cause H1Z1 was promised a bigger map but never came into fruition.
    The H1Z1 map size increase was postponed because the dev team was refocused on fixing bugs and completing the game to a releasable state instead of doing something 1000x larger. It will probably never happen though, but not because of tech issues (it's probably just too much work for the size of the dev team).

    EQNext got the seamless/large maps upgrade this summer. There was some devs post about AI having issues crossing the seamless borders back last summer (Everquest, the first game, also have AI issues with that).
  • ArchlyteArchlyte Member RarePosts: 1,405
    This whole thing smacks of knowing they have progressed too far down a bad road with the gas light on. At this point they may be frozen between fate and an inability to move in any direction.
    MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
  • MukeMuke Member RarePosts: 2,614
    Nanfoodle said:
    All I know is DGC told us 2015 was going to be the year of EQN, not sure what that means with 2 weeks left in the year and as far as I can see, not any new info to mention. 
    It means that in 2016 you'll probably get to see the release of a mere shell of the originally intended game or more probably, the cancellation of the game.

    "going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"

Sign In or Register to comment.