Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
MMO series have no obligation towards fans of previous titles
Aeander
Member LegendaryPosts: 7,836
I'm going to be blunt. The title is a good tl;dr here.
Audience loyalty is a requirement of short-life games.
The general expectation of a game series is that subsequent titles will aim at and appeal to the playerbase of past titles in the series while hopefully expanding this audience through improvements.
This expectation holds absolutely, 100% true for single-player titles, offline games, console games, and other games with a generally short life-expectancy. The only exception is when a new title diverts from the genre of other games in its universe entirely - as was the case with the Halo RTS.
This is part of the nature of these series. Mass Effect 1 may have been an incredible game, but it is not one that is endlessly replayable to most of its audience. Some will stick around and invest hundreds, if not thousands of hours, but a majority will play through it a few times (or less) and move on with fond memories of the title and an anticipation of its sequels.
MMORPGs are different.
Sure, any given MMO may (and probably will) require expansions and developer support to maintain this momentum, but games in this genre are designed to obtain and hold a loyal playerbase for months or even years at a time.
What does this mean for the MMO genre?
Simply put, the developers have every right to "reinvent the wheel" in regards to their series. In fact, they have every reason to, if they intend to run the servers of previous titles in their series alongside the new sequel.
SOE has no obligation to make EQN a spiritual successor to EQ1 or EQ2.
They have no reason to do so if they do not wish for it.
They are not being unreasonable or disloyal to their previous fans by changing to a more GW2-esque form with this new MMO. MMO titles stand alone. Because of this, it may actually be a significant service to EQ's existing fanbase to continue to run and support previous titles.
There is no indication that EQ2 will be shut down or entirely lose developer support in response to this market shift. All signs indicate that SOE wants to create a new market but still serve its old one.
EQ2 will likely receive a better treatment than Guild Wars 1 (which continues to run, but has no developer support outside of holiday events).
SOE is being entirely fair and the product of their work looks to be worthy
With EQN, SOE is bringing forth a new title that, if it lives up to its hype, will prove to be an innovative game. It is a game that knows what it wants to be and makes no pretentions of universal appeal. It has its niche and it is actively appealing to it, which is more than can be said for most existing or upcoming titles. And it's even opened up polls to gauge community feedback and assist in the development of the game.
If anything, SOE's efforts should be commended, and I say that as someone who has never been a fan of SOE titles.
Comments
I disagree, in part. If you have a franchise then there are certain expectations that go with it. Reasonable expectations. I am fine with people having reasonable expectations but there seems to be some that feel justified in holding unreasonable expectations.
That said, SOE are and have been very clear on the fact that this is a reboot so I think any anger or dissatisfaction aimed at what they are trying to do with EQN next is just misplaced. Plus EQ and EQ II are still there and I still play both and will continue to play both so anyone choosing not to play EQN is doing so simply because they are unwilling to adapt.
Just like the films, a reboot maintains the heart and soul of the original but brings it up to date, presents an alternate way of presenting the story and finds interesting new avenues to tell that story.
I too am commending what SOE are doing here, especially with certain design goals that I think will shape the next 15 years of MMO game play. Just as they did 15 years ago with EQ.
What exactly do you mean by obligation?
In theory they could make EQ Next into "My Little Pony Everquest Online Adventures" and fans could not take them to court about it. CORRECT
If the above or something similar happened fans do not have the right to and are not justified in complaining/venting in forums and not purchasing the game. INCORRECT
I'm of the opinion that the product that EQ1 + EQ2 fans desire is a product that already exists - in these games and in other current and future titles.
The best way to serve and cater to them would be to devote separate development teams to the continued longevity and improvement of EQ1 and EQ2. That entails graphics improvements (to the extent allowed by the game engines), new content, and other forms of continued support.
As for EQN, I am infinitely glad that it is going the route that it is. It is one of the few titles (existing and upcoming) in this genre that looks to be appealing and different from established norms (in a good way). It may or may not succeed to the degree that I (and other hopefuls) desire, but it will, no doubt, contribute much more to the genre (in terms of diversity and innovation) than an "EQ3" or another EQ-clone/WoW-clone could have hoped to accomplish.
I agree with the above too. Except I would replace EQ2 with EQN. EDIT: Beat me to it.
It's like a second child coming along though. The exisiting child isn't completely unreasonable for having misgivings if they do. It's reasonable to expect the parents to have to devote a lot less time to them and a lot more to the new child.
Yep. and Fans of previous titles have no obligation towards MMO series either.
So, when this title goes down the same path that all MMOs developers tried to create a game that doesn't appeal to the group is should and the game starts hemorrhaging it's player base after 2 months, We will all know why,
Well people should judge the game on it's merits otherwise they are deluding themselves and missing out.
It is ok to have genuine gripes about a game, I have had many, but I have never based them on the fact that a game isn't a carbon copy of the previous title, that is just a stupid reason not to like something. Unfortunately many people say things like "I will never again" or " I can never forgive" and stuff like that is just a poor reason not to like a new game. Emphasis on NEW.
Some refuse to play a game on principle, and only they themselves can judge whether it right or wrong for them. They might lose out on some fun, but sometimes one has to uphold an ideal they believe in.
I have no opinion on EQ:N's reception. I may even try it for my curiosity. Who knows if I'll like it or not.
For some, the old adage "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." can be justified, even if others disagree.
If I could continue my analogy it is also very possible that the new child will also improve the old childs life with time. Surely there will be more attention and more dedication to the new child initially but it could very well result in a more fulfilling and well rounded family life.
To translate into reality, a stronger SOE (Assuming EQN does well) may mean SOE can operate and improve EQII at a lose when people get sick of it, just as they have done and still do for EQI.
But yeah calling them stupid isn't helpful.
OK, guys, This isnt' about "Never forgive" or the like, this is about SOE's track record leaving more to question than to trust in.
I'll believe it when I see it. But right now, I have my doubts. But don't get me wrong. I'm not saying EQN is going to be a failure. I just don't think it's going to re invent the genre and will most likely do what all the others have done since. Start off with an impressive boxed sales launch and lose most of them shortly there after.
Well unless your talking about founders packs you will most definitely be wrong. It'll launch as free to play so there won't be box sales. Which I think is far more trust worthy than titles like SWTOR LOTRO and so on selling boxes and in some cases life subs and than going f2p. It is worth mentioning that SWTOR and LOTRO were successful once they went free to play.
Having doubts is fine but unless you want to get in on Alpha than you won't have to pay to see yourself if they were well founded or not.
that was just a wrong choice of words, I really mean to say, it will start off with high numbers
Oh, fans of the first two titles have every right to be disappointed.
In fact, I can even see where they are coming from.
Guild Wars 1 was my favorite game of all time. Yes, of all time. I still hold up its design principles as the pinnacle of good design, both past and, in many cases, modern. I adored it for its skill-ceiling. For its PvP. For its genius approach to horizontal progression. For its complexity. For its innovation. For its art. For its music. For its story and world.
When Guild Wars 2 was announced, I was stoked. Absolutely.... stoked. I thought "this is going to be just like Guild Wars 1 but BETTER!" In fact, Anet even fueled this opinion in myself and others by advertising their in-development game as "everything you loved about Guild Wars 1 in an open world."
When the game launched after five painful years of hype and anticipation, I was initially enthused, then terribly disappointed. Oh, the end result was good. I enjoyed it. I still play and enjoy it, though I regularly burn myself out on it and require breaks.
The fact of the matter is that Guild Wars 2 is not Guild Wars 1, despite being advertised as such. It is completely different and (though superior in some regards, such as art and combat) is far inferior to its predecessor in many ways.
This is not the same scenario, however.
The profound difference between the treatment of Guild Wars 1 loyalists and EQ loyalists is a matter of honesty.
Guild Wars 1 loyalists were mislead and offered a product that was never advertised as a reboot or a major diversion from the philosophies of the game they loved. Guild Wars 2 is not horizontal - it is vertical. It does not have a deep, massively-customizable skill system. It does not have a focus on intense, skill-intensive small-group interactions, but is rather a mindless zerg train in much of its content. It is NOT "everything that you loved about Guild Wars 1 in an open world," as was advertised, but rather something entirely different.
EQ's loyal fans know exactly what they are getting. SOE is presenting their design goals in a blunt and honest manner. It has been made clear that EQN is not "Everquest 3," but is rather a re-imagining of the series with new goals and new philosophies. It has been made clear that EQ2 will continue to receive support in an effort to serve the fans that made this series what it is.
EQ fans are being treated with a large degree of respect and consideration, though this should not be mistaken for SOE giving up on the goals they have set for their new game. In fact, they should NOT give in to the whims of their loyalists on this reboot, but should rather make every effort to support both of their groups of players (current EQ1+2 players and future EQN players). To force SOE to cave on their desired ideals will only result in an inferior product that attempts to please everyone and ends up pleasing no one.
At this point, what do I actually advocate? Reasonability. It is your right to not like something. It is your right to be disappointed about it and perhaps to complain. But do not claim that SOE has a responsibility to cater their new title, which was advertised as a reboot with a different type of player in mind, to your wishes. You do not have to play the game (though I would recommend that you try it and develop an impression based on experience). You do not have to support the direction they are going. But that hardly makes this title a betrayal, and it certainly doesn't make it a bad game.
EQNext proves your theory, as that game will get no obligation from fans of the other EQ games. It's Nothing like the previous games, and the good things they have planned won't be enough to save it from its deficits. After playing the Landmark combat yesterday I realized that EQNext is dead for sure for a lot of EQ Fans.
SOE deserves no sense of interest or commitment from former players, so the feeling is mutual
I can't argue the point you are making here, except for one thing. You are speaking as though EQN's design is an established fact. Like it's out and they have already delivered exactly what they said they would. But they haven't yet, so the jury is still out on SOE's integrity in their advertising. But going by previous track records............well, we'll just leave it at that.
That may be true it may not be but you are missing part of my point. SWTOR is apparently a classic example of a flop after intial success right? It sold 2 million or so box copies but last I heard it was retaining around the same amount of people and making more profit after going free to play than it was with it's subs. EQN isn't starting with subs and boxes, even though I'm sure they could make a pretty penny than do the old bait and switch too. I think that is deserving of some trust and I think judging by other games success in the f2p market there isn't so much cause to be skeptical about retaining initial numbers, atleast not by basing it on games that started out with a box and than later successfully converted over.
For some reason I can not seem to link the figures of SWTORs initial boxe sales and it's successful transition to free to play but I found both on massively.com after a search engine inquiry.
SOE has never, ever considered fan views or opinions when making any decisions, so in this particular case, it is nothing new.
SOE and Smed will lie, and spin, and say anything and everything to get people to play this game, despite what the game actually ends up being (which will most likely be console fodder).
So, in the end, SOE will do what they want, and customers turning into former customers will punish them for their short sightedness, and stupidity, as usual.
Well, there's only three scenarios here.
1) The game delivers on its design principles as intended, pleasing the new base and possibly converting some of the old base if the finished product is good enough to warrant their attention.
2) The game does not deliver or only partially delivers on its design principles, not pleasing (or not fully pleasing) its intended base, but also not effecting the expectations of EQ1+2 loyalists and traditional MMO players - the primary detractors of the intended design.
3) The game makes a knee-jerk conversion to the principles of its predecessors, betraying the developer's desired goals, diminishing the game's value to the genre, and requiring a complete rehash of most of the game's content. This would not please the originally-intended new audience of the game but MIGHT please EQ1+2 loyalists. More likely, however, this complete and spontaneous reversal of the game's philosophies (with little time to do an extensive, well-thought out overhaul of the game) would have the same effect as Anet's attempt to please the traditional MMO/vertical progression crowd in Guild Wars 2 with the introduction of Ascended Gear - which did very little to please the vert progression/traditional crowd, but INFURIATED Guild Wars 1 loyalists and much of Guild Wars 2's intended market.
At the very least the assumption can be made that the game will not be "Everquest, but with different graphics, different AI engine and voxels".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
As I see it they have some obligation since they named it Everquest: The world must still feel as Norrath even if the mechanics of the game is very different and you might not play in the same way.
If they wanted to make a very different world they should have made a new IP (not saying they did though, really need to try the game to know that).
Different mechanics is not a problem though, in fact just updating the graphics and letting the game be extremely similar to one of the first game havn't worked since "DOOM 2".
It was always Norrath that made Everquest Everquest, not tanking mechanics or even questing (no matter what the name say). But Norrath have a rather specific feeling to it and they should be true to that.
And here is where we agree. If it is to be a sequel or reboot to the series, it must capture the heart and soul of the series. It does not need to have the same mechanics. It does not even need to be in the same genre. But it needs to keep the world and story in line with the games that it is succeeding.
I would argue that World of Warcraft, on a storyline level, was a betrayal to Warcraft loyalists. It bastardized the lore of its RTS predecessors in the name of lining all of its races up into its two factions. By rights, World of Warcraft did not capture the heart and soul of the series it was based on. It apparently worked out, as WoW is the most successful MMO of all time, but there are still bitter, disappointed Warcraft 3 loyalists who are disappointed at the "ghost state" (continued running but very lacking support) that their game now lives in (and this is the same scenario that Guild Wars 1 players find themselves in).
We have no reason (as of this moment) to believe that EQN is a betrayal of its series, because, as you said, mechanics do not breed betrayal. The series needs only to be consistent in terms of its universe.
At the end of the day, I wish the Everquest 1+2 community well. I want their games to continue to receive active developer support with new content and new balance tweaks. I do not want them to suffer as Guild Wars 1 players or City of Heroes players did.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
They desired to set their world in the same universe with a connection to their established lore.
They WANT their game to take place in Norrath.
I will refute your point by pointing out an obvious distinction in their label. The game is NOT titled "EverQuest III." That would imply a sequel, which would, by most expectations and established conventions, also imply a loyalty to the mechanics and philosophies of the preceding games (even if said mechanics are updated somewhat).
No, the game is titled "EverQuest Next." There's no trick involved here. It's not a sequel. It's a reboot, and that's been made clear right from the start.
The difference between a reboot (or a spinoff) and a sequel is that a sequel is expected (whether justly or unjustly) to be the same type of game as the ones before it. A reboot (or a spinoff), can take every creative liberty (with the worst case scenario being lore retconning), so long as it remains in the same universe as its predecessors. It need not have the same philosophies, mechanics, or even genre as the other titles.
no they dont.
They know just like most of us know that the majority of players of EQ couldnt tell you anything about Norrath because they dont give a shit about that.
You think the developers are using the name because they have a hard on for the lore?
pleeeasssseeeee....
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
@op sorry dude but i think you have missed the obvious with SOE.
They have the all access for a reason,they hope that you will dabble in other games and spend even a tad of money on them.This type of business strategy aims at getting money from players they would otherwise get nothing from because nobody is going to pay to play every game in their portfolio.
I love the often used sales pitch of businesses,in reality you are not saving money if you are spending money you would normally not.This is also why the station exchange SOE monetary system will be with every game.
IMO SOE missed the boat on creativity they simply do not know how to be creative with their ideas.That is probably why they instead are aiming for Voxels and player made content.I find it very hard to believe SOE will have any intuitive ideas for EQNext just more of the same old but with cheaper ideas to save cost of development,sort of what FFXIV did in the beginning.
I believe EQnext will just be EQ2 with a newer version of Minecraft and a more limited streamline combat system similar to FFXIV.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.