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

124

Comments

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 7,723
    Muke 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. 
    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.
    I highly doubt there will be a cancellation. CN has skin in the game and if all DGC does is release a standard MMO with its modern tools like voxels and the EQ name. It will make money. At this point Im not sure how much is scaled back or if they are on track for a large reveal soon. What I am sure of, there is no cancellation. That would just be dumb business. To many assets in play to just chuck them out.



  • AlleinAllein Member RarePosts: 2,086
    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: 
    I don't follow non-mmos very closely, but I know that both Fallout 3 and Witcher 3 had press before hand.

    Fallout 3 had a previous canceled version that was released to the public...along with various trailers/teasers from at least 2007 on. Wasn't a ton of in-game playing demos, but the engine and what not was on display.

    Witcher 3 also had trailers/demos at the last couple E3s on top of whatever else.

    As this is a mmo site, I'll stick to that and continue to say that for the most part, we see or play them a decent time in advance and it isn't trailer-release.

    I've started online gaming at least 10 years before youtube existed, so maybe I don't use it as my gaming news source.

    As far as the voxels go, at the 2013 reveal Rosie showed/talked about how they tried using Maya and what not to create a geometric world and it wasn't easy/pretty. Voxel Farm came along and not only did it make it easier on devs, they enjoyed it so much they decided to release a product focused on it (Landmark).

    Again, if you can link a source that says "Landmark" existed or was a concept before VF, especially 2010, I'd appreciate it.

    I don't pretend to know everything about EQN's history, but I've wasted enough time that I doubt I've missed too much. I'm assuming you mean SOE stated as DBG hasn't said much about EQN (yes they are the same company I know), but do you which dev and which event/panel?

    Landmark as a game seemed to be something Georgeson was all about and he wasn't leading the EQ franchise back in 2010. During the 2010 fanfaire they didn't mention anything about players being involved in creating content or being part of development of EQN.

    I don't remember your old user name, but I do remember some of your threads, appears you were banned. Looks like you've been riding the hype train for quite some time. To each their own, but at some point you probably should consider why no one seems to agree with you.
  • Daffid011Daffid011 Member UncommonPosts: 7,945
    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. 
    This is a company that has constantly over promised and under delivered.  It should not be a shock that their big claims went unfulfilled.  I'm not sure why anyone would expect anything different this time.
  • Daffid011Daffid011 Member UncommonPosts: 7,945
    Allein said:
    Storybricks actually tried to buy SOE, they turned them down, so apparently Sony wanted a few more pennies.

    I think the issue was a disagreement on terms of the sale. However, Sony later came back to Storybricks to accept their offer, but Storybricks investors were not longer interested.

    This suggests that Sony wasn't getting what they were asking or felt they could get. 

    If there was any real value in SOE or EQN, then it is most likely that a company that has experience with actually making games would have purchased SOE, instead of a Russian investment firm or a startup tech vendor.


  • SyndromofaDownSyndromofaDown Member UncommonPosts: 325
    Allein said:

    I don't follow non-mmos very closely, but I know that both Fallout 3 and Witcher 3 had press before hand.

    Fallout 3 had a previous canceled version that was released to the public...along with various trailers/teasers from at least 2007 on. Wasn't a ton of in-game playing demos, but the engine and what not was on display.

    Witcher 3 also had trailers/demos at the last couple E3s on top of whatever else.

    As this is a mmo site, I'll stick to that and continue to say that for the most part, we see or play them a decent time in advance and it isn't trailer-release.

    I've started online gaming at least 10 years before youtube existed, so maybe I don't use it as my gaming news source.

    As far as the voxels go, at the 2013 reveal Rosie showed/talked about how they tried using Maya and what not to create a geometric world and it wasn't easy/pretty. Voxel Farm came along and not only did it make it easier on devs, they enjoyed it so much they decided to release a product focused on it (Landmark).

    Again, if you can link a source that says "Landmark" existed or was a concept before VF, especially 2010, I'd appreciate it.

    I don't pretend to know everything about EQN's history, but I've wasted enough time that I doubt I've missed too much. I'm assuming you mean SOE stated as DBG hasn't said much about EQN (yes they are the same company I know), but do you which dev and which event/panel?

    Landmark as a game seemed to be something Georgeson was all about and he wasn't leading the EQ franchise back in 2010. During the 2010 fanfaire they didn't mention anything about players being involved in creating content or being part of development of EQN.

    I don't remember your old user name, but I do remember some of your threads, appears you were banned. Looks like you've been riding the hype train for quite some time. To each their own, but at some point you probably should consider why no one seems to agree with you.
    There have been worse than me...Especially on these forums. Like reddit, you get a lot of hate for being positive about a game. Which doesn't bother me at all.

    It was an interview he had at gamescon in April 2014, he talked about combat going into Landmark and monsters, that same interview. That same interview he mentioned Voxel BEING signed into the project meaning it had to predate Voxel Farm and mentioning Landmark "had it rough [looking at the state it looks like now]..."

    2010 was the year minecraft was in beta so im guessing they looked at the possibilities of making something like that.

    I've been playing mmo's for 17 years and maybe im casual but ive never played a alpha or beta tested before.
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 7,723
    Daffid011 said:
    Allein said:
    Storybricks actually tried to buy SOE, they turned them down, so apparently Sony wanted a few more pennies.

    I think the issue was a disagreement on terms of the sale. However, Sony later came back to Storybricks to accept their offer, but Storybricks investors were not longer interested.

    This suggests that Sony wasn't getting what they were asking or felt they could get. 

    If there was any real value in SOE or EQN, then it is most likely that a company that has experience with actually making games would have purchased SOE, instead of a Russian investment firm or a startup tech vendor.


    I have read much info on the subject and never seen anything that Sony came back to SB to accept their offer. Source or I call BS =-)



  • KiyorisKiyoris Member RarePosts: 2,130
    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.
    omg, shining force avatar
  • AsboAsbo Member UncommonPosts: 812
    An Everquest game WILL be made. Whether it is NEXT or not. This is inevitable as if its going to rain on the earth even the deserts get rain though sparesly. My prediction is, if it gets started from scratch, there wasn't much assets to throw away anyway. The Research and developement would have paid off. The engine and tech will have been "reborn" much fitted for it's eventual release in 2020. Everquest and Everquest 2 was set for a 15-30 year plan with expansions pumping out and improvements made. It would be wise for Daybreak to release another EQ mmo now but if not now then somewhere 6-9 years down the line. But they will i can sense this franchise not going away...

    We have to see farther than what the next year or bi annual thinking can bring. The EQ brand is all Daybreak has in the mmorpg scope being Daybreak's only fantasy mmo. Could they actually create another franchise after spending so much time putting it into Everquest? 
    They have and will continue to take peoples money by whatever means they can as this is a dying animal on life support IMO. They lack the talent or leadership to move EQN forward that's for sure otherwise they would be showing what they are achieving because that is their way. They continue to get players to build their game as they cannot. You only have to look at landmark and see the lack of what this game has to offer it's really poor when you stack it up with other products out there.

    They have started policing their boards and not allow people to express their opinions or disapproval of what they see, also there is a lock down on any chat about EQN. This only shows they have something to hide, they do not respond to any emails sent to them with regards to question on how they are spending our money on EQN nothing.

    In my opinion this is nothing short of criminal and I believe they will get the same back lash as SC got from Derek Short very soon if they do not start giving people what they pledge to see. Before everyone starts jumping in and saying well you pledge that's that. They have a responsibility to provide a product under consumer rights so it will be interesting to see how they respond to complaints moving forward.

    Personally I don't care if EQN come out anymore as I have moved on, there are bound to be other games which will provide the type of game I and many others want to see. Like someone said above I am of the belief that this company will crash and may last a year or two until they progressive servers dry up and people realise nothing is changing except their bank balance.

    Asbo

  • SyndromofaDownSyndromofaDown Member UncommonPosts: 325
    edited December 2015
    I can't see why they would sell this franchise i mean, its a fantasy franchise, and they are hard to come by, that millions have played at one time or another, and to make brand new lore and brand new characters would be another project that's not as solid. EQNext was SOEs attempt to make another mmorpg but instead of making an entirely new game they reimagined Everquest. Make's me think if this was aimed at fan's of the previous installments or not, but even that is subjective. What is known, is that they are taking something popular and re-skinning it to their modern ambitions and future ambitions for their next mmorpg release. Which is a great business move because it brings new players into the franchise which it sorely needs. The graphics aren't too cartoony and as long as its not Disney or Pixar it should be fine. What Daybreak needs to do with this game since there will be a lot of new players entering the genre through this game is keep the challenge but the power curve more straight, which i believe what they are doing with action skill based combat is that you get better with practice and there is not a whole lot to the combat that would hinder someone who is brand new to rpgs since there isnt a lot of numbers to be crunched. Some people simply cannot look at numbers all day. It's the biggest hurdle to get into rpg's is too look at numbers. With what they are doing they get is a more fluid game that responds more instep of how you are doing (rather what you are supposed to do which creates a "grind") and it leads to more pyschological factors that leads to what the gaming experience is supposed to be about, which is "fun". The AI should amuse people for endless hours of "thinking" and responding rather than grinding away your pc. I get drained when i play Everquest, i still play it, but only because of the time invested in it. That's also probably sadly the number 1 reason why people come back. Expansions coming out to continue the same game, well, What comes with EQN is a different type of game where story comes first then god-like immersion and i think thats much better than character progression or grinding...
  • AlleinAllein Member RarePosts: 2,086
    There have been worse than me...Especially on these forums. Like reddit, you get a lot of hate for being positive about a game. Which doesn't bother me at all.

    It was an interview he had at gamescon in April 2014, he talked about combat going into Landmark and monsters, that same interview. That same interview he mentioned Voxel BEING signed into the project meaning it had to predate Voxel Farm and mentioning Landmark "had it rough [looking at the state it looks like now]..."

    2010 was the year minecraft was in beta so im guessing they looked at the possibilities of making something like that.

    I've been playing mmo's for 17 years and maybe im casual but ive never played a alpha or beta tested before.
    We all have different experiences obviously. I've participated in many betas and a few alphas, have taken a long ride on the hype train, and have seen game after game disappoint (me). Is what it is.

    No one should receive "hate" over a video game. Pixels aren't that serious.

    But as we all have opinions, when folks try to come across as if their word = fact, clearly others respond in various ways, many times not positively. I myself have been called fanboi, white knight, and other lovely terms, but meh. At the same time, I don't close my eyes and pretend anything but my highest hopes are possible, reality is never so pretty.

    I'll have to look up that interview. Honestly interested in how things come about, even if I don't understand all the technical aspects, honestly never heard them speak of "Landmark" prior to Aug 2013 and the 1st version and maybe the 2nd "prototypes" didn't look like they were using voxels. 

    Regardless, things are how they are and all the happy words, promises, power points, and staged demos aren't going to convince the masses that EQN is real or will be as amazing as they've hyped. Unfortunately we are all in the same spot and must wait until DBG is willing to show something off.

    What is concerning is they said from the start that Landmark players would have the same tools as the devs, which is clearly not the case and that they'd show us XYZ when they were ready, which means that XYZ either aren't ready after all this time or are and they aren't willing to share yet.

    Change in management has an impact, but at the same time they said "nothing would change" yet their communication style and emphasis on Landmark obviously did.

    So it's hard for me to give them my total blind faith if they aren't able to follow through on their word.

    As I said, it isn't that serious and I'll be fine either way. Plenty of upcoming games that will fill the void.
  • AlleinAllein Member RarePosts: 2,086
    What is known, is that they are taking something popular and re-skinning it to their modern ambitions and future ambitions for their next mmorpg release. 
    Or at least we hope that is what they are doing.

    Little of Landmark is innovative and we yet to see any EQN only mechanics to prove they are actually capable of pulling off what they hyped.

    They were able to take Voxel Farm (someone else created) and put it into a mmo format, but it is far from polished nor original when there are games like Trove and what not that take voxel worlds to another level.

    Maybe we won't have to wait another year to find something out, maybe we will, hopefully DBG has at least a little something worth our attention that they are proud enough to show in the near future.

    Until then, we will just be speculating and talking in circles.
  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    I can't see why they would sell this franchise i mean, its a fantasy franchise, and they are hard to come by, that millions have played at one time or another, and to make brand new lore and brand new characters would be another project that's not as solid. EQNext was SOEs attempt to make another mmorpg but instead of making an entirely new game they reimagined Everquest. Make's me think if this was aimed at fan's of the previous installments or not, but even that is subjective. What is known, is that they are taking something popular and re-skinning it to their modern ambitions and future ambitions for their next mmorpg release. Which is a great business move because it brings new players into the franchise which it sorely needs. The graphics aren't too cartoony and as long as its not Disney or Pixar it should be fine. What Daybreak needs to do with this game since there will be a lot of new players entering the genre through this game is keep the challenge but the power curve more straight, which i believe what they are doing with action skill based combat is that you get better with practice and there is not a whole lot to the combat that would hinder someone who is brand new to rpgs since there isnt a lot of numbers to be crunched. Some people simply cannot look at numbers all day. It's the biggest hurdle to get into rpg's is too look at numbers. With what they are doing they get is a more fluid game that responds more instep of how you are doing (rather what you are supposed to do which creates a "grind") and it leads to more pyschological factors that leads to what the gaming experience is supposed to be about, which is "fun". The AI should amuse people for endless hours of "thinking" and responding rather than grinding away your pc. I get drained when i play Everquest, i still play it, but only because of the time invested in it. That's also probably sadly the number 1 reason why people come back. Expansions coming out to continue the same game, well, What comes with EQN is a different type of game where story comes first then god-like immersion and i think thats much better than character progression or grinding...
    You have articulated your point of view much more clearly in this post than you have before :awesome:

    Why would they sell this franchise?  Because they have considered its potential revenue benefit from keeping it and the value they would get from selling it and their calculation is that it is more beneficial to sell than to keep.  Now I am not saying they have reached this position, just that is what they will do to sell or just abandon it.

    "The graphics arn't too cartoony", that is very subjective and my subjective opinion is that they are Disney-esque and far too cartoony.  Your mileage may vary.   Dave Georgeson's obsession with "SOEmote" required avatars with large features and overblown expression, their experience with introducing it to EQ2 showed them that.  This distorted the art brief and produced the avatars we have been shown.

    "Action skill based combat" is also (in my subjective view) very problematic, it makes things too time sensitive and makes the game more vulnerable to server lag and gives too great an advantage to players with slower reflexes and those suffering from high ping times (I am sitting on a 300ms ping time in EQ2 at the moment and this is typical).

    Then there is "they reimagined Everquest", again in my view, they reimagined it so much that it is no longer Everquest at all.

    But all of this is somewhat moot.  The project has, at the very least been subject to a major review and is no doubt very different to whatever version of the Georgeson vision you accept.   IF the game reemerges from its third period in the  blackbox people will have to make their minds up about it again. 

  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,175
    1. If CN had wanted to cancel EQN they would have fired all the staff working on EQN when they completed the acquisition. They didn't ergo their was - and presumably still is - a plan for EQN.

    2. CN essentially "bought" probably three "things".
     
    First part: a portfolio of released games with a revenue stream and, except for H1Z1, a history. Relatively easy to value; projections made for how much money each game would make etc.  A bit more complicated for H1Z1 but they would agree a provisional price with extras depending on how well it did. And there would be arrangements about DCUO as well since that game was - and presumably still is - a three way partnership. We have no how profitable or even if these games are profitable. As a portfolio though we have to assume that CN decided they were worth buying at the price they paid.

    Second part: a development project called EQN and maybe some other ideas as well. Harder to value but estimates will have been available on how much it would cost to bring it to market - so what CN would have to spend ($X) - and of the value Sony attached to the work done ($Y) and what the game might make ($Z). And they would haggle over the price - review the estimates etc. and agree a price. We have to assume that at the price they paid CN were happy with the risk-reward ratio.
    It's a gamble though. Think of it as a hand of poker - Sony put money into the pot but have dropped out; CN have decided that based on what it will cost them they are getting good odds of getting a winning hand. And as long as the odds are OK EQN will continue.

    Third part: the EQ IP. What is it worth? All but impossible to value I suggest. I suspect that Sony wanted "a lot". And that Storybricks - who I think will have wanted the IP - only wanted to pay "a little". And - based on the Storybricks comment that Sony sold SoE for "less than they were offering" my guess is that the deal between CN and Sony gives Sony some downstream "protection" - Sony excepted a lower upfront price + a future royalty say. Sony will not have wanted a repeat of Star Wars!!!!!!!
  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,413
    gervaise1 said:
    1. If CN had wanted to cancel EQN they would have fired all the staff working on EQN when they completed the acquisition. They didn't ergo their was - and presumably still is - a plan for EQN.


    So, the issue with EQN is what the "Plan" for it is.  I think its pretty obvious at this point it is not going to release in any state that resembles what was shown prior to the acquisition.  My guess is they're trying to figure out a way to monetize it, probably by turning it into a watered down facebookey type game with lots of RMT.

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Hrimnir said:
    gervaise1 said:
    1. If CN had wanted to cancel EQN they would have fired all the staff working on EQN when they completed the acquisition. They didn't ergo their was - and presumably still is - a plan for EQN.


    So, the issue with EQN is what the "Plan" for it is.  I think its pretty obvious at this point it is not going to release in any state that resembles what was shown prior to the acquisition.  My guess is they're trying to figure out a way to monetize it, probably by turning it into a watered down facebookey type game with lots of RMT.

    Or perhaps "the plan" was devised by Smedley and sold to CN along with the studio.  If this is so maybe "the plan" hit the circular filing cabinet on the same day as Smedley left the office for the last time. The "new plan" for the Everquest IP may be, as suggested by others, is to let EQ:N fade away and milk the last dollars from EQ/EQ2 while moving the studio into development of games for mobile devices.
  • ReallyNow10ReallyNow10 Member UncommonPosts: 2,225
    What if ... Daybreak sold the IP to Blizzard?  And then Blizzard made the sequel to EQ as their own next MMORPG?  Fascinating.
  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,413
    What if ... Daybreak sold the IP to Blizzard?  And then Blizzard made the sequel to EQ as their own next MMORPG?  Fascinating.

    Would never happen.  And frankly that would be just as terrible a game as anything that daybreak produces.  As far as I'm concerned the EQ IP is dead.  Anything that comes out of it is going to be purely to try to milk it for any money they can, not to actually create an Everquest game.

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 16,328
    I agree the IP is dead,this whole vision was Smedley's and he is gone.

    Smedley had a vision to expand to other platforms and reach a bigger audience,he saw that DB would allow him that opportunity.However how much thought did he really put into it since DB immediately started laying off his staff lol.

    So who is running the show now?Yes a long time EQ guy but he is not Smedley nor Brad.

    Here is what i see happening...

    two scenarios
    1 Eventually EQN gets released,flops badly,lasts a year though then they look to sell the gaming business
    2 after EQN they shift all focus to very low budget games,likely mobile since that was also Smedley's plan for this move to DB..Columbus Nova.

    I see scenario two as the likely choice as long as they are making some money.However i see possibly even more layoffs after EQN is released,likely only a small team to make mobile games.


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

  • SyndromofaDownSyndromofaDown Member UncommonPosts: 325
    edited December 2015
    I don't think this game will make or break the franchise like EQ2 never broke it. And EQ2 was dismal to start out with. This game has a lot going for it. 40 classes, thats a lot of replay value. Everything, really is going for it and mix that in with innovation and nostalgia and its a powerful hype drug that im on...(btw their new building is located on innovation corporate center shown here 

    Why would Columbus Nova close shop that quick i mean they just bought the company shouldn't they wait until their sponsored game gets released? They knowingly bought into Next and its possible risks. The only thing that is stopping Next is the upper management within Daybreak, not CN. CN doesn't meddle with games but merely serve as a higher board that DBG reports to. What would CN gain after selling SOE just after buying them? Investment firms count money. 1 million here a million there. They don't care. 

    I think most of the staff that was layed off was due to Landmark. If you are not preforming they will fire you or propose a severance plan. Sigh i don't think it was due to Next at all. CN asked Smedley who should be let go and JButler(Creative lead), Tiffany Spence(Community manager)she got replaced),Dave Georgeson(Dir. of developemt Everquest franchise), Steve Danuser(head lore guy), Brasse (CM) off the top of my head and Eric Smith (designer). What they did keep was the producers, Michael Mann (head systems dev), Rosie Rappaport (Senior Art director), Dexella promoted etc...

    You know, i wish i can let you read my twitter. I see the convos between devs and people who follow the game and whenever someone ask about info the devs (In this example Michael Mann) say they are "...working on really cool stuff [that they would wish to show but cannot]" Really "Awesome" stuff. It brightens my day and seeing that i follow 140 daybreak people (LOL) i am certain this game will be released its just a matter of time before we see anything that makes it into the light. For now.

    [when asked about how internal testing went] Michael Mann:"I can't say anything officially but...Unofficially it went great..."

  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 10,828
    Daffid011 said:
    Allein said:
    Storybricks actually tried to buy SOE, they turned them down, so apparently Sony wanted a few more pennies.

    I think the issue was a disagreement on terms of the sale. However, Sony later came back to Storybricks to accept their offer, but Storybricks investors were not longer interested.

    This suggests that Sony wasn't getting what they were asking or felt they could get. 

    If there was any real value in SOE or EQN, then it is most likely that a company that has experience with actually making games would have purchased SOE, instead of a Russian investment firm or a startup tech vendor.


    I think the disagreement with Storybricks over the sale, was that Storybricks didn't want the incumbent management, and here i am thinking they meant Mr Smedley, its hard to say if CN actually paid more than Storybricks offered for SOE, it may even have been less. The irony of Mr Smedleys eventual removal however is not lost on me either :p
  • Daffid011Daffid011 Member UncommonPosts: 7,945
    Phry said:

    I think the disagreement with Storybricks over the sale, was that Storybricks didn't want the incumbent management, and here i am thinking they meant Mr Smedley, its hard to say if CN actually paid more than Storybricks offered for SOE, it may even have been less. The irony of Mr Smedleys eventual removal however is not lost on me either :p
    I agree.  It does sound like the senior management were trying to protect their jobs, but no one was interested in buying SOE and retaining the people that ran it into the ground.  Throwing good money after bad.


    If SOE/EQNext was so promising as some suspect, then there would have been more interest from buyers, especially real gaming companies.  Perhaps even bidding competition.  Instead it got to the point where SOE's vendor, a start up with no clients and 10 total employees, was capable of raising bank loans to purchase a failing gaming company.

    Additionally, no one purchased storybricks or their technology.  I think that speaks volumes as to what condition storybricks was in.  I think it is safe to assume that storybricks is out of EQN and why the company wont talk about it anymore.

    As for Smedley getting fired, yeah but it was half a decade to late.  Then they promoted Smeds long time second in command, which is exactly the opposite of what should be done when a company is trying to change its internal culture. 
  • SyndromofaDownSyndromofaDown Member UncommonPosts: 325
    " Instead it got to the point where SOE's vendor, a start up with no clients and 10 total employees, was capable of raising bank loans to purchase a failing gaming company. "

    Im not in the banks favor but wouldn't the bank question the loan it might credit to Storybricks, i mean its something of mulit millions of dollars without getting QA from both Storybricks and Everquest Next? If it was that easy to buy SOE then storybricks must have pitched the banks a sale of a lifetime that even DG would be proud of. I interpret it as something of value going for EQNext really for the banks to also probably put the EQ franchise in collateral.

  • Daffid011Daffid011 Member UncommonPosts: 7,945
    I don't think this game will make or break the franchise like EQ2 never broke it. And EQ2 was dismal to start out with. This game has a lot going for it. 40 classes, thats a lot of replay value. Everything, really is going for it and mix that in with innovation and nostalgia and its a powerful hype drug that im on...(btw their new building is located on innovation corporate center shown here 

    Why would Columbus Nova close shop that quick i mean they just bought the company shouldn't they wait until their sponsored game gets released? They knowingly bought into Next and its possible risks. The only thing that is stopping Next is the upper management within Daybreak, not CN. CN doesn't meddle with games but merely serve as a higher board that DBG reports to. What would CN gain after selling SOE just after buying them? Investment firms count money. 1 million here a million there. They don't care. 

    I think most of the staff that was layed off was due to Landmark. If you are not preforming they will fire you or propose a severance plan. Sigh i don't think it was due to Next at all. CN asked Smedley who should be let go and JButler(Creative lead), Tiffany Spence(Community manager)she got replaced),Dave Georgeson(Dir. of developemt Everquest franchise), Steve Danuser(head lore guy), Brasse (CM) off the top of my head and Eric Smith (designer). What they did keep was the producers, Michael Mann (head systems dev), Rosie Rappaport (Senior Art director), Dexella promoted etc...

    You know, i wish i can let you read my twitter. I see the convos between devs and people who follow the game and whenever someone ask about info the devs (In this example Michael Mann) say they are "...working on really cool stuff [that they would wish to show but cannot]" Really "Awesome" stuff. It brightens my day and seeing that i follow 140 daybreak people (LOL) i am certain this game will be released its just a matter of time before we see anything that makes it into the light. For now.

    [when asked about how internal testing went] Michael Mann:"I can't say anything officially but...Unofficially it went great..."


    First, Assuming Columbus Nova isn't getting involved as you suggest.  Then all they are really concerned with is the bottom line.  They do not care how much work or money went into EQNext BEFORE they purchased the company.  Just what will maximize their profits or limit their costs and if shutting down EQNext fits that bill, that is what they will do.  They do not have the nostalgia googles that we have or any desire fix the MMO genre.  They care about their investment.

    Second, you listed almost everyone that was in charge of decision making for EQN and they were fired.  People who do great work don't get fired.  Projects that have great potential or are even in decent shape don't fire almost everyone that was in charge.  Make no mistake, this was a huge vote of no confidence in the project. from Columbus Nova.

    Last, these guys always talk about the amazing mind blowing stuff they are working on.  I agree that it is energizing to hear the passion, but when you compare their passionate claims to the actual games they have delieverd, there is a massive gap between the two.
  • SyndromofaDownSyndromofaDown Member UncommonPosts: 325
    They haven't made an mmo in 11 years. You do realize different games in the company have different budgets right? So to compare Daybreak as a whole to what Everquest Next developement is doing is ridiculous. They can be a entirely different team. I have a friend (very close one) in the industry that works for EA. What SOE did which MANY other game companies didn't do is retain lots of its old loyal employees. He says its wiser for people to move and shift from one game to the next better for the company and better for the employed. What Daybreak did was a spawn of corporate culture and was detrimental to the projects they worked on. You have to trim the fat. Landmark was a complete failure and seniority devs felt the blade on that one. I guarentee you this team they have now is much better than the previous team that got let go with the exception of Brasse as CM and SMedley. This vote of no confidence is laughable at the sight of those who follow this game more closely than you think. The devs are the ones who deliver. Let the past be past.
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,188
    I can't see why they would sell this franchise i mean, its a fantasy franchise, and they are hard to come by, that millions have played at one time or another, and to make brand new lore and brand new characters would be another project that's not as solid. EQNext was SOEs attempt to make another mmorpg but instead of making an entirely new game they reimagined Everquest. Make's me think if this was aimed at fan's of the previous installments or not, but even that is subjective. What is known, is that they are taking something popular and re-skinning it to their modern ambitions and future ambitions for their next mmorpg release. Which is a great business move because it brings new players into the franchise which it sorely needs. The graphics aren't too cartoony and as long as its not Disney or Pixar it should be fine. What Daybreak needs to do with this game since there will be a lot of new players entering the genre through this game is keep the challenge but the power curve more straight, which i believe what they are doing with action skill based combat is that you get better with practice and there is not a whole lot to the combat that would hinder someone who is brand new to rpgs since there isnt a lot of numbers to be crunched. Some people simply cannot look at numbers all day. It's the biggest hurdle to get into rpg's is too look at numbers. With what they are doing they get is a more fluid game that responds more instep of how you are doing (rather what you are supposed to do which creates a "grind") and it leads to more pyschological factors that leads to what the gaming experience is supposed to be about, which is "fun". The AI should amuse people for endless hours of "thinking" and responding rather than grinding away your pc. I get drained when i play Everquest, i still play it, but only because of the time invested in it. That's also probably sadly the number 1 reason why people come back. Expansions coming out to continue the same game, well, What comes with EQN is a different type of game where story comes first then god-like immersion and i think thats much better than character progression or grinding...
    Messy, messy paragraph, but I will attempt to address the major points.

    • Selling the franchise.  Everquest, the IP, may be the most valuable thing that SOE ever produced.  There are still games in development attempting to 'modernize' that classic game play.  It is very likely that the largest return on investment to be made off the remnants of SOE would be selling the entire EQ family to a developer -- EQ1, EQ2, Landmark, and EQ:N.  There may be more profit in the IP in the long run, but CN may not want to bear the development costs necessary to bring EQ:N to a playable state, so they may choose to divest themselves of this future expenditure in favor of a short-term return on investment.
    • Reimagining Everquest.  This may be the best point you make.  I could disagree that EQ:N only tries to capture the very basic ideas of the IP, and ignores anything beyond the original release  (Okay, the Qeynos/Halas aspects of the lore, with some hints of other lands).
    • New player base.  This is one area where I think SOE was completely off-base.  Where is this glut of new players?  They are playing other games.  SOE seemed to expect to attract a large population of non-games, and the hints at the development goals and artwork seem to cater towards non-gamers.  But where this hoard of non-gamers is isn't clearly defined.  UO had players of the Ultima series.  EQ1 gathered in table-top gamers.  WoW pulled in devotes of the Warcraft RTS games.  There's no readily identifiable player base ready to be tapped by a new game.
    • Graphics and Gameplay.  The art style received the most criticism from gamers.  That's a highly subjective issue, so I'll choose to ignore that aspect.   I'd agree that a next generation game needs to cut down a significant amount of 'grind'.  The big issue with EQ:N (and MMORPGs in general) is that these games want to reduce the 'grind', but don't replace this with alternate activities -- there's only combat and crafting.  That is taking one aspect of role-playing (long-term development) away, and nor replacing it with anything.  I have doubts as to whether this style of game will prove successful -- it seems more like these games are abandoning the RP aspects of the genre.
    • Numbers.  I'd strongly disagree with statements implying that numbers are a deterrent to the MMORPG genre.  They certainly weren't to EQ1 or WoW or any other MMORPG.  I expect you will find pockets of dice-wielding D&D players alive and well at most every high school, college and university.  A barrier to playing (steep learning curve) isn't always something that hurts the game/genre.  Look at Paradox strategy games -- complex simulations with dense (and not always intuitive) concepts and interfaces, but they are managing healthy growth.  Complexity isn't a barrier to a game.  Yes, it does take more dedication and desire from the player to learn and progress, but it can be overcome.

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

Sign In or Register to comment.