Howdy, Stranger!

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

Landmark - Just put it out of its misery

124»

Comments

  • herculeshercules Member UncommonPosts: 4,923
    while some try and break EQnext and landmark as 2 seperate games fact is it was sold as a builder for EQnext and many bought it for this reason or to aid fund EQnext.
    i did not but i can see why many offended by it
    SoE or daybreak recent history in try to grab money  by any means does not help.i was on that TLP server which they increased experience gain to almost old EQ style all trying to make it "'classic feel''.but then sold experience pots which never existed in classic , all to maximize money.
  • mmoguy43mmoguy43 Member UncommonPosts: 2,770
    edited September 2016
    DMKano said:
    mmoguy43 said:
    Regardless of what happens/ed to Landmark the pitch for the EQN vision still has a huge amount of interested attached to it.(not talking about the game or franchise here) It's now just a matter of a studio finding the right tech and budget to pull it off to be an instant hit. 

    The problem is that "finding the right tech and budget" to pull it off - is like saying "cold fusion - just a matter of scientist finding the right tech and budget to pull it off".

    Yeah the amount of "tech" and budget required is beyond the scope of anyone today - and I am talking having 100% features that were pitched to us for EQN. It's unattainable by anyone today and probably for the next 10+ years.

    It's not so far fetched. Other low budget games are already partially there but not enough to meet your 100% of EQN vision criteria. Various forms of procedurally generated content has come a long way as well as voxel build/destruct worlds and gameplay. What's next is the AI component and self-perpetuating quest-like content. I'd say in 3-4 years we might be there.
  • Spankster77Spankster77 Member UncommonPosts: 487
    I go back to what I have always said, and I know people on here will hate me for saying this, but... 

    I will never sink a dime into a game until it's at least in it's beta version (and I mean true beta, not alpha labeled as beta).  People hate MMO's like WoW and FFXIV and say that indie/crowd funded are all the rage but I don't and never will buy that crock.  If you want me to buy your product, make a product and sell it to me.  Don't expect me to pay for your discovery and trial and error process.

    SoE has always been a shit show.  I think of EQ 2 and Vanguard which are perfect examples of good games that they completely botched.  They did the same exact crap with vanguard which was basically release an early beta game just to recover costs then never sank the necessary resources into it to finish the product.

  • k61977k61977 Member EpicPosts: 1,466
    They will probably shut off the servers and package the game as a single player, building game to try and milk just one more round of dollar off it.
  • herculeshercules Member UncommonPosts: 4,923
    i sometimes wonder if everquest would be in a better place with broadsword like DAoC and UO then with daybreak.
    truthfully the expansions recently have been terrible and clear case of trying to grab money for little effort.lets not even talk about how TLP servers are been handled
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,630

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    mmoguy43 said:
    DMKano said:
    mmoguy43 said:
    Regardless of what happens/ed to Landmark the pitch for the EQN vision still has a huge amount of interested attached to it.(not talking about the game or franchise here) It's now just a matter of a studio finding the right tech and budget to pull it off to be an instant hit. 

    The problem is that "finding the right tech and budget" to pull it off - is like saying "cold fusion - just a matter of scientist finding the right tech and budget to pull it off".

    Yeah the amount of "tech" and budget required is beyond the scope of anyone today - and I am talking having 100% features that were pitched to us for EQN. It's unattainable by anyone today and probably for the next 10+ years.

    It's not so far fetched. Other low budget games are already partially there but not enough to meet your 100% of EQN vision criteria. Various forms of procedurally generated content has come a long way as well as voxel build/destruct worlds and gameplay. What's next is the AI component and self-perpetuating quest-like content. I'd say in 3-4 years we might be there.
    Yeah, right. Except for Murphy and always remember Murphy was an optimist. Ten years is much more likely than four. Four implies it is already in development with stable tech and that is extremely unlikely.
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 9,727
    We the Landmark community told them what we needed to keep playing. We played Landmark to be part of building something. To work with the developers on projects. With EQN being killed we asked for new contests and direction. To do something to make Landmark a cohesive world. Places to explore made by players, dungeon contests that would add player made content to the world. Again no one listened. 
  • herculeshercules Member UncommonPosts: 4,923
    edited September 2016
    Nanfoodle said:
    We the Landmark community told them what we needed to keep playing. We played Landmark to be part of building something. To work with the developers on projects. With EQN being killed we asked for new contests and direction. To do something to make Landmark a cohesive world. Places to explore made by players, dungeon contests that would add player made content to the world. Again no one listened. 
    thats because they had no interest in spending another dime on landmark but came up with the  idea that they could milk a bit more by putting it on steam and that is what they did.
    what is sad folks paid $200 for this.they let down their fans (few as they are left)

  • mmoguy43mmoguy43 Member UncommonPosts: 2,770
    mmoguy43 said:
    DMKano said:
    mmoguy43 said:
    Regardless of what happens/ed to Landmark the pitch for the EQN vision still has a huge amount of interested attached to it.(not talking about the game or franchise here) It's now just a matter of a studio finding the right tech and budget to pull it off to be an instant hit. 

    The problem is that "finding the right tech and budget" to pull it off - is like saying "cold fusion - just a matter of scientist finding the right tech and budget to pull it off".

    Yeah the amount of "tech" and budget required is beyond the scope of anyone today - and I am talking having 100% features that were pitched to us for EQN. It's unattainable by anyone today and probably for the next 10+ years.

    It's not so far fetched. Other low budget games are already partially there but not enough to meet your 100% of EQN vision criteria. Various forms of procedurally generated content has come a long way as well as voxel build/destruct worlds and gameplay. What's next is the AI component and self-perpetuating quest-like content. I'd say in 3-4 years we might be there.
    Yeah, right. Except for Murphy and always remember Murphy was an optimist. Ten years is much more likely than four. Four implies it is already in development with stable tech and that is extremely unlikely.
    I never suggested that a fully complete EQN-like game could be out in 3-4 years, only the combined tech could be so that production could begin.
    You are a pessimist, I get it.
  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521

    One thing to keep in mind in while having this conversation is there are still updates to the game with more tools and ongoing tweak/bug squashing to tools. If it was on it's way to closure you figure there would be a long stint of silence, which there hasn't been. In my optomistic yet suspicious mind this leads me to possibility there is a greater purpose yet for LM. Whether that is tools/assets for another IP or greater meta for the base game it's intruiging to be sure.

  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    SoE's mistake - imo - was releasing EQ2 as a standalone game (rather than "linking" it to EQ1 by e.g. having EQ2 as some sort of magical alternate reality that EQ1 characters could enter + a single sub).
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 19,510
    edited September 2016
    I started to doubt the game quite early when they gerrymandered the forums so the topics they wanted to discuss became the one they talked about. I think they also made the forums list posts by those ticked the most by other players as well.

    It was clear then they were bluffing on a lot of things, relying on nostalgia and peoples hopes for a new kind of MMO which brought back the traditions of old MMOs. That's when I stopped following them.

    Even then harping back to the old days had become standard marketing technique.
    Post edited by Scot on
  • herculeshercules Member UncommonPosts: 4,923
    basically if you look who is left in daybreak (soe) and the company that owns it no shocker they pushed this unfinished product on steam
    like someone suggested i would not be shocked if they close landmark and few months later re release it as a single player game just to see if they can squeeze more out of this left over disaster.
    any respect i had for this company(and i used to have a lot even after swg fiasco) is totally gone
Sign In or Register to comment.