Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
[Column] Landmark: Flushing Money Down the Drain?
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
Victor finds toilets have come to Landmark, and wonders if he’s flushing money down the drain supporting crowd-funded gaming efforts.
Read more of Victor Barreiro Jr.'s Landmark: Flushing Money Down the Drain?
)
Comments
I don't necessarily want to be the guy who comes in and immediately starts defending an investment in Landmark, but...
It has been six months since we've had a crack at the alpha and in that time an enormous amount of features and technology have been implemented in the game. Some of that technology, like water or caves, required original R&D at SOE to implement. If your viewpoint is purely "what did I get out of it", then I think you could easily look at past Blueprints (if only they existed) and see that you got a lot of bang for your 20 bucks.
But the real value in the Founder's packs for Landmark come from not features delivered but rather through the opportunity to have your voice heard - to be a "dev". I have seen countless suggestions implemented, feedback heard, and bugs quashed thanks to forum posts and tweets. Though your mileage may vary in other games, I really feel like the devs ARE listening in Landmark and your 20 bucks bought you that too if you took advantage of it.
---------------------------
SOE Community Council Member 2014
Landmark Representative
Twitter: @AndriiMMO
"Decisions are made by those who show up."
- President Josiah Bartlett
Im just disappointed at the glacial rate of progress. I expected to be beta testing Everquest Next at this point. They are advancing on Landmark, sure, but people like me really care about Next.
Bring on the toilets!
The rate of meaningful content is terrible. They havent even put in the stationary mobs that were supposed to be in with combat. All we get are props , marketplace additions , bug fixes / tweaks.. Maybe there is hope that they are working more on EQN now than Landmark.
Can we get another reporter to report on Landmark and EQN.
Perhaps one that follows the forums, is up to date on the latest information and generally has a clue!
Why were these props introduced.....because there was a demand for them.
Anyone who plays and follows the game development knows what is happening but the amount of sloppy reporting on this site through pure laziness is astounding.
Going to have to agree
Very good post. People forget that often in AAA titles we never get a voice because there is one group or another who doesn't care about everyone's experience but just wants some kind of gratification or to change the game into something it shouldn't be or is not. Crowdfunding should definitely change that in games, but I wonder if companies will continue that trend post official launch. We've seen some AAA titles who have investors listen to the majorities demands for a different kind of game initially only to completely drop the ball post launch and even go out of their way to ignore players for years before finally losing enough money and players to actually DO something about what's missing and their direction to attempt to bring players back.
Hopefully they'll break the mold post launch as well.
Mystery Bounty
What did you expect? Building is a major portion of the game.
They don't just throw out toilets because they feel like it. They had massive feedback from community about what props they wanted and this was one of them.
Equating an artist's time to make bathroom props to the overall progress of the project is pretty childish. You have no real concept of what the development process is. You probably shouldn't have bought into the game even though they told you this ahead of time before you spent any money.
I don't understand what's so hard about the concept of building a game from the ground up. So many people have no concept of the time or effort needed or what "base systems" are.
To be fair to Victor, this isn't a news report. It's an editorial column, which means it's his opinion on the subject at hand. You may not like it, and in this case it may not even be right, but the real point of this post is that he invested in the game, and feels like it's not going the direction he'd hoped it would.
Try to be excellent to everyone you meet. You never know what someone else has seen or endured.
My Review Manifesto
Follow me on Twitter if you dare.
Not surprised to see bathroom props added, as morphing them from the existing selection was a challenge at best. Now I can recover my morphs and plunk down these shiny new props... well maybe not since I kinda like my morphs. :P
I am one of the people not complaining about a glacial pace of development in Landmark. I like this game specifically for the voxel building and am kind of dreading combat, mobs and my first fatality from forgetting about fall damage. =/
Advancement in Landmark *is* advancement in EQN.
Beyond that, your expectations are your own issue.
Except its obvious he doesn't read the landmark forums and actually gave the game a chance.
I bought the 60$ founders pack back in February. Mostly on the strength of Planetside 2 and it's straight forward development and the EQN:L (at the time) road map. 2 months later I asked and received a refund. First time ever.
The reason I asked for a refund was that development seemed to be going no where. A stark contrast to the development of Planetside 2. On top of that the Road Map had been edited and changed.
Touching on this article, what developments that were made were not moving the project in the direction of the glorious dev. interviews that were given prior to Alpha launch. Instead of putting in game systems they added a fully functional cash shop. That was the point were I decided to watch from a far.
The people who play Landmark wants to play Landmark. Most of those who said "I am only here to develop EQN" are long gone. All the systems that will be in EQN (mostly in a more advanced form) will be tested in Landmark. But it is getting more and more clear that Landmark is a game on its own, with a different playerbase .
Chi puo dir com'egli arde é in picciol fuoco.
He who can describe the flame does not burn.
Petrarch
At any given time there are no more than 200 people playing across 200/300 islands. (I don't know if it has been reduced.)The people who play Landmark are a very small number by any game standard. I believe that the pace and direction of development have been the main reasons.
That being said, adding combat and pvp is a step in the right direction. A very small one,but a step. Opening one of those 200/300 islands up for free build pvp would get me and I'm sure many other back in or in for the first time. They have the claim flags, the control point capture flags, and ofcourse they have building and destroying. I hope they get it done
Well if you are happy for this site to publish opinion pieces that are factually inaccurate that is up to you. In my opinion that is poor journalism at best.
And if the real point of his post was to demonstrate his investment in the product and his disappointment, I think it would be better if he was capable of showing his investment. I don't see someone as being invested in a product when they show they don't have a clue about the current state of development and the reasoning behind the decisions made.
Actually, he's right. The current direction Landmark is going, is just pathetic. They keep churning out props and station cash items just to milk more money out of gullible people. If you're honest, you would admit that that the landmark team has changed the blueprint/roadmap around 3 times already, which is fine, but the more they change it, the more it proves that they have no direction. Even the devs don't know what Landmark is supposed to be.
---------------------------
SOE Community Council Member 2014
Landmark Representative
Twitter: @AndriiMMO
"Decisions are made by those who show up."
- President Josiah Bartlett
Anarchy Online (AO) had "Toilet Props". They are not anything new to MMO gaming. Hygiene is a character property that can be used to determine health and well being, or NPC interactions. I know I have considered using it. It can also be a vector for humor.
If you are only now having second thought regarding your crowd funding decisions, then the fault is yours. I doubt much has changed with those that you funded. Those red or yellow flags are becoming apparent to you now, because now you are paying attention. I suspect you fund much like you drive, write, and review, asleep at the wheel. No offense intended. My only intention ever, is to be correct.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Businessmen never know what is going on, and that is why they make decisions and make the money. Engineer know, but do what they are told.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
I am sick of general forum posters without a clue what they are talking about spouting nonsense in discussions when the information is there for anyone with a mind to understand what they are talking about.
But for this site to promote the same attitude is just pathetic. If they are going to hire people or allow people to write articles on games they need to at least be accurate. The article stated that these props were release for no good reason but the actual reason is that people active on the LM forums have been asking for them.
So either this opinion piece is inaccurate through choice or through lack of research. Either option is not worthy of sponsorship on a site that is broadcast to a wide circulation of people who come here to read informed articles. To the casual bystander this article is worse then lacking substance, it is providing inaccurate information.
And sorry but I am not attacking the person who wrote it but the content of what was written. If someone wants to put their opinion out into the public domain they better do so either with integrity or accept people will call them out for their mistakes.