Howdy, Stranger!

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

[Interview] EverQuest Next: The Adventurer Comes to Landmark



  • VoqarVoqar Member UncommonPosts: 510
    All sounds good except the monetizing of player content (with SOE undoubtably taking a cut) and the F2P.  F2P is garbage for quality MMORPGs.

    Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.

  • MyrdynnMyrdynn Member RarePosts: 2,419
    Originally posted by Voqar
    All sounds good except the monetizing of player content (with SOE undoubtably taking a cut) and the F2P.  F2P is garbage for quality MMORPGs.

    just not true


  • NobleNerdNobleNerd Member UncommonPosts: 759
    Originally posted by Telondariel

    I'm a little confused about a point towards the end of the article:


    "Landmark is FTP, but plots of land across the worlds will be bought with Station Cash"


    So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the entirety of purpose of Landmark is to head off into the hills, find some land, and build to your heart's content.  Right?  But, now we're told that in order to create and build, to even begin, you need to pay for the plot itself.  Correct?  If Landmark is designed so that you have to open your wallet first, then build, it is not FTP.  


    I think an answer that hasn't been given yet is elaboration on their FTP model.  Will it be tiered like the other FTP games in their stable, such as EQ2?  Their payment matrix includes a subscription option which allows you access to all game content, excluding Marketplace items.  Having a full sub also rewards you with 500 Station Cash per month.  Will EQN follow a similar matrix?


    I do not have a problem with subbing.  I play EQ2 and have had a recurring subscription for years.  While it has the option to be played purely as a FTP game, I prefer having everything available to me upfront.  I have concern that Landmark will not have this model and it will cost the player a bit here, and a bit there, and amount to nickel and diming.  Certainly, having to pay for your plot of land from the get go sets off warning bells for me.  


    I really need more information on their payment model before I play Landmark, or EQN for that matter.  

    This is SOE we are talking about. Most of their "F2P" games have fees everywhere. When EQ2 went so called F2P I did some math and if you really wanted to enjoy the game you were better off subbing than micro-transactions. I am sure it will be the same for EQN - Landmark.


    If the game actually does close to what they are proclaiming it may be worth it. Watching and seeing.

  • Ender4Ender4 Member UncommonPosts: 2,247

    Comparing a sub game that went FTP with an actual FTP game is pretty much useless. The only game they have that you can really compare is PS2 and personally I don't find their fees to be outrageous in that one. You can buy anything with in game currency in that game and when players complained about something being a bit too pay to win they took it out of the cash shop.

Sign In or Register to comment.