It is not just me that feel it is a powerful IP. It is fact. Every EQ game released was a money maker. EQ1 made buckets full (the WOW of it's day) EQ2 has a solid player base (now anyways) the game continues to make money. Even EQOA was a money maker. Smedley has said himself the IP will continue to move foward
Everquest made buckets full of money for two reasons. It was a pioneering game in the genre at the time of an explosive growth rate and secondly it had almost no competition for years. The IP of everquest had nothing to do with its success.
Sure EQ2 makes money, but all mmos make money to some degree or another, but I wouldn't exactly call every mmo a powerful IP now would you?
I think it is very safe to say that EQ2 has underachieved by a very wide margin the expectation of soe considering it did had the most recognized mmo IP behind it. The best it could muster is about 1/3 the success of the original. I doubt it even breaks 200k users. That doesn't exactly speak volumes about the power of the IP now does it? Especially if you consider that soe is still aiming for games that will attract millions of users. Nothing about the everquest IP suggests that it will attract those types of numbers.
If you can log onto and play an MMO it is doing better than many would like to admit. At the very least the game, whatever it may be, is making more than enough money to keep the servers open. In fact, it is making a lot more than enough to keep the servers open. No company will keep the doors open to just break even every month. Norrath lore is legendary among rpg gamers and while i agree, three games at the same time based on that lore would be spreading it a bit thin EQ3 is something i see as very likely in the future.
What the OP fails to realize is that EQ was successful because of lack of PVP. They stole most of UO's thunder when they created a world where players weren't constantly looking over their shoulders. I doubt very much that we will see another EQ anytime in the near future. Neither EQ nor EQ2 is doing well at all and another iteration is not going to change that.
I hardly think that is the reason it was succesfful. It was successful because it was fun and the genre was in its infancy. It was very different than UO, but they were both very successful at the time. There were almost no other choices then and very few people playing MMo's in general.
People didn't play EQ because they said, "Ha, finally an MMO without PVP."
Why would such a greedy company turn their product into something so niche and severly limit their customer base while alienating their current customers?
Am I the only one that reads the irony in that statement?
Originally posted by Daffid011 A lot of people enjoyed everquest back in the day, but times were much different back then. Most of those same people talk about all the great times (myself included), but if given the choice to play a game like everquest again they would not. I know I'm generalizing here, but I don't think the foundation of what made everquest great would attract people today. Even the people who enjoyed it 10 years ago. Soe would be smart to not use the everquest name in an mmo again until both other games are gone. There is just to much expectation from previous everquest players and to much reputation of those games for others to take interest in. As someone else mentioned it would just further split the population of the current games. Everquest 2 never really did better than around 1/3 of what everquest was doing at its height, so I don't think a third installment makes much sense since the second one didn't do so well.
Old Everquest had two faces. One was a charming art-style crafted world, and the other an ugly hardcore punishing game. And yes I'd agree the latter I think few people would play.
Originally posted by blueturtle13 Yes you are right by saying it underachieved but that kinda goes without saying But it does speak volumes to the power of the IP sorry. EQ is 10 years old and still has a good population for how old it is. EQ2 has around 150 to 200 thousand people playing? Thats a lot for a game that underachieves, Is a sequel and is 5 years old. EQOA was played by a few people on PS2. Everquest books have sold reasonably well over the years Even the Console Champions games sold well. The IP is strong. Like it or not.
Let me clarify my statements.
If SOE was to make a new fantasy based mmo I think they would be better servered with a new IP than returning to everquest.
No matter how powerful you think it is, the numbers and history suggest it may not be the best investment.
Everquest peeked around 550k users. The sequel peeked under 200k users in a time when the mmo market went from about 7 million users to 50+.
If the original IP went 550k to a sequel that struggled under 200k, what would you expect the third installment to do? If the everquest name can't bring at least as many players to the sequel as the original then I doubt it will somehow be strong enough a third time around and I doubt soe is aiming for games with a few hundred thousand players anymore.
Saying things like "not bad". "played by a few people" and "still makes money" are not qualities you look for in a powerful IP if you are going to invest tens of millions into a new mmo. I really think they would be better off with a new world and free themselves from all the predetermined expectations that come with the everquest franchise. As much as I do enjoy the fond memmories I have of norath, I think it is time to move on. The person who really put the life into that world has been gone for a long time and it shows.
EQ3 imo EQ3 = EQ1 + better graphics and all servers are PvP like Sullon Zek
signed
It is unwise for EQ 1 and EQ 2 to compete with itself with an EQ 3.
We need the vision and talent of EQ 1 --yes, bring Mr. McQuaid back into the fold-- with innovation. We want community, content, creativity, and challenge.
But we also want accessibility, intuitive features, and customer support.
You mean the guy who totally screwed up Vanguard? Did you not read any of the controversy about how poorly he managed the development of that game?
Yes. I did.
But it is my point: we need innovation and immersion, not an old title.
EQ3 imo EQ3 = EQ1 + better graphics and all servers are PvP like Sullon Zek
signed
It is unwise for EQ 1 and EQ 2 to compete with itself with an EQ 3.
We need the vision and talent of EQ 1 --yes, bring Mr. McQuaid back into the fold-- with innovation. We want community, content, creativity, and challenge.
But we also want accessibility, intuitive features, and customer support.
You mean the guy who totally screwed up Vanguard? Did you not read any of the controversy about how poorly he managed the development of that game?
Eh Vanguard was awful because of funding. The direction they were going and the ideas behind the game were excellent.
EQ3 imo EQ3 = EQ1 + better graphics and all servers are PvP like Sullon Zek
signed
It is unwise for EQ 1 and EQ 2 to compete with itself with an EQ 3.
We need the vision and talent of EQ 1 --yes, bring Mr. McQuaid back into the fold-- with innovation. We want community, content, creativity, and challenge.
But we also want accessibility, intuitive features, and customer support.
You mean the guy who totally screwed up Vanguard? Did you not read any of the controversy about how poorly he managed the development of that game?
Eh Vanguard was awful because of funding. The direction they were going and the ideas behind the game were excellent.
Ten years ago.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
Another thing yo uhave to consider with SOEs games is that they have station pass/access where players pay one price and have access to several games including EQ1, EQ2, SWG, and Vanguard.......When people say EQ2 has 200k players its hard to say how many of those are EQ2 only and how many are station access.....SOE never releases their numbers for station access so we never really know how well any of their games is doing on its own.........
EQ3 imo EQ3 = EQ1 + better graphics and all servers are PvP like Sullon Zek
signed
It is unwise for EQ 1 and EQ 2 to compete with itself with an EQ 3.
We need the vision and talent of EQ 1 --yes, bring Mr. McQuaid back into the fold-- with innovation. We want community, content, creativity, and challenge.
But we also want accessibility, intuitive features, and customer support.
You mean the guy who totally screwed up Vanguard? Did you not read any of the controversy about how poorly he managed the development of that game?
Eh Vanguard was awful because of funding. The direction they were going and the ideas behind the game were excellent.
Not really. I've played Vanguard since beta 3 and it was always going to fail. It just did not live up to the hype.
I agree the ideas were great, but it didn't work out. Why was that? In large part I think it was down to the management (i.e Brad and Co).
If the original IP went 550k to a sequel that struggled under 200k, what would you expect the third installment to do? If the everquest name can't bring at least as many players to the sequel as the original then I doubt it will somehow be strong enough a third time around and I doubt soe is aiming for games with a few hundred thousand players anymore.
SoE don't exactly have many IPs. You're saying make a new IP- an unproven nothing IP that is going to attract what? Or you're saying do what Turbine did take an IP like Lord of the Rings.
I personally think if an Everquest game was good enough then it would pull in people anyway. The problem is as you say the creators behind the magic of Everquest went a long time ago.
I think if they just took EQ up to velious and improved the graphics it would be awesome.
Even if thye didnt improve the graphics I'd play it.
I just think that newer MMOs don't have the depth of EQ. Like, it doesn't take you more than an hour to get from one location to another in WoW.
In EQ, you might have to run for 5-6 hours through dangerous terrain to get where you want to go. For instance, if i want to go to thurgadin, I have to go to NRo, to the ship, to some weird zone, to another, and to another, then to thurg.
But like wtf? In WoW you can travel instantly basically, it sucks. And all the instances are too convenient to get to. And they are all instanced, god it fucking sucks. Like, I remember going to TOFS for gear. It was really hardcore, because it was a long trip to get there and the zone was usually somewhat empty. Or to do CC you invis and fall down 100 floors.
Where is it in any MMO that you have to go through dangerous situations to get to good grind locations with good loot tables. Newer MMORPGs have basically eliminated loot tables from world spawns and instanced everything. If you want loot you have to do some sequential bullshit where you clear out the instance over and over. Whatever fucking happened to CAMPING locations? Fucking MMORPG makers are dumbasses because that was the most fun stuff ever. Forming groups, camping locations that you want to camp. And now everything is so fucking sequential for retarded players I hate it all
EQ3 imo EQ3 = EQ1 + better graphics and all servers are PvP like Sullon Zek
signed
Vanguard is EQ3; still signing?
Joke aside, the brand "EverQuest" is plagued with a bad reputation, backed by a bad developper, and is a thing of the past which helped the genre grow.
Just let it die quietly.
My addiction History: >> EQ1 2000-2004 - Shaman/Bard/Wizard/Monk - nolife raid-whore >> WoW 2004-2009 + Cataclysm for 2 months - hardcore casual >> Current status : done with MMO, too old for that crap.
If the original IP went 550k to a sequel that struggled under 200k, what would you expect the third installment to do? If the everquest name can't bring at least as many players to the sequel as the original then I doubt it will somehow be strong enough a third time around and I doubt soe is aiming for games with a few hundred thousand players anymore.
SoE don't exactly have many IPs. You're saying make a new IP- an unproven nothing IP that is going to attract what? Or you're saying do what Turbine did take an IP like Lord of the Rings.
I personally think if an Everquest game was good enough then it would pull in people anyway. The problem is as you say the creators behind the magic of Everquest went a long time ago.
I'm not sure if it would be better for them to get an established IP or make a new one. Everquest wasn't established when they first release that, so creating something new is a possibility.
I guess the question you have to ask yourself would be this. If a game was good enough, would it pull in more subscribers with the everquest brand on it or as some new property? Would the everquest brand make the game more attractive or would it hinder sales with players having preconceived expectations of what the game would be.
On the flip side if the new game wasn't so good at release and needed the standard 12+ months to get fixed after the launch, would people be more willing to give it time if it was labeled everquest?
I don't want this to be looked at as bashing eq, because I have a lot of great memories of the game and really enjoyed the world and the lore. EQ2 did ok with some of the lore, but it always had that recycled feeling to it. Like I was paying for a watered down version of the first game and never really was a living world of its own merits. It just didn't have the same feeling and it was obvious that the creative inspiration behind the IP was gone and was replaced with something else.
Thats because when everquest was first being made it was probably an exciting thing for the developers. As years go by it bacame more about making money and the fun factor and heart of making a game went away. I dont know about anyone else but everquest just had something about it that didnt make it feel fake.. boat travel, being able to attack randome town folk and dieing on accident, jumping off the boat in freeport and kill that stupid shark down in the water, getting someone you met to follow you to an unknown place then dieing couse your KOS or by some crazy big fugly creatur that comes out of nowhere, then saying "WTF happened lets go see what that that was " then going back and boom your dead again! That crap was exciting to me and that how i met some really good friends. These new game just done feel the same and nor does the current EQ its like they are just throwing shit in at random with the rong itentions. If their intention were to really make a game people would love, EQ3 would work with no doubt. But its all about money, and what they should do to get people to play or what not, marketing blahblah. What i feel... is for a good game to be made the people making have to really be thinking about that game and not how they are gona make money off it.
If that makes any sence lol its hard to really word out what i think in my head....kinda pisses me off really haha
This forum needs to learn the skill Necromancy Protection (Passive ability: Threads automatically become locked after 14 days have passed without a post.)
(only posting here because this thread's already at the top of the forum >.> )
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
EQ3 will copy as much from Vanguard as they can but with actual funding. It will do much better than EQ2. Although like any SOE game expect it to be released 1-2 years early in a horrible unfinished state.
And not only did it fail because it was bugged, it failed because no one wanted to put up with the long travel times, slow xp and timesinks. You know the increased Xp and rifts were put in after release in a patch right?
EQ3 would fail too, sorry, just because you never evolved and have fond memories of EQ doesn't mean that going back to 1996 playstyle is viable gameplay for a new MMO, it's not.
EQ3 was called Vanguard. And not only did it fail because it was bugged, it failed because no one wanted to put up with the long travel times, slow xp and timesinks. You know the increased Xp and rifts were put in after release in a patch right? EQ3 would fail too, sorry, just because you never evolved and have fond memories of EQ doesn't mean that going back to 1996 playstyle is viable gameplay for a new MMO, it's not.
Edit: Thanks for bumping a month old thread.
I played Vanguard Beta. It didn't fail because of slow xp and time sinks. It had lots of other design problems. All playstyles are viable today, just as much as yesterday, if they are executed well.
EQ3 was called Vanguard. And not only did it fail because it was bugged, it failed because no one wanted to put up with the long travel times, slow xp and timesinks. You know the increased Xp and rifts were put in after release in a patch right? EQ3 would fail too, sorry, just because you never evolved and have fond memories of EQ doesn't mean that going back to 1996 playstyle is viable gameplay for a new MMO, it's not.
I guess I would need to hear your definition of "fail" before I can adequately respond to this. If by fail, you mean fail to make enough money to support itself, than I would completely disagree. If you mean fail to reach WoW-type subscription numbers... well that's another story.
I would have to argue that the reason Vanguard did so poorly - maybe failed, maybe not - is solely due to its unfinished, buggy state at release. The game had an enormous following before release and sold something like 150,000 copies in its first month. Mind you, these initial subscriptions were from people who were well aware of the long travel times, slow xp, and timesinks (although it's up to the player to find something else to do beyond grinding the same mobs, such as exploring new regions and dungeons,etc.) because the game was designed from the bottom-up to have them. And they were probably also well aware of the appallingly buggy state of the game (if they read any forums anyway). Sure, the game is barely afloat today, but a terrible launch and a persistently buggy state have absolutely everything to do with that.
For this reason, I would argue that EQ3 would probably not fail as you've claimed. But then again, I use failure to describe a game that fails to make money and cannot support itself and a development team to add meaningful content. There's no question a game of that type would be very niche and appeal to a small segment of gamers, so if failure means something else to you, then you might be right. However, I've played a fair amount of EQ2, which is considered a failure by many, yet they continue to trot out new content and new expansions, and the game is doing very well. It will never come anywhere near WoW's subscription numbers but it obviously doesn't need to in order to succeed.
My two cents anyway.
Edit: I probably should have let this thread die. Sorry everyone.
Comments
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Everquest made buckets full of money for two reasons. It was a pioneering game in the genre at the time of an explosive growth rate and secondly it had almost no competition for years. The IP of everquest had nothing to do with its success.
Sure EQ2 makes money, but all mmos make money to some degree or another, but I wouldn't exactly call every mmo a powerful IP now would you?
I think it is very safe to say that EQ2 has underachieved by a very wide margin the expectation of soe considering it did had the most recognized mmo IP behind it. The best it could muster is about 1/3 the success of the original. I doubt it even breaks 200k users. That doesn't exactly speak volumes about the power of the IP now does it? Especially if you consider that soe is still aiming for games that will attract millions of users. Nothing about the everquest IP suggests that it will attract those types of numbers.
If you can log onto and play an MMO it is doing better than many would like to admit. At the very least the game, whatever it may be, is making more than enough money to keep the servers open. In fact, it is making a lot more than enough to keep the servers open. No company will keep the doors open to just break even every month. Norrath lore is legendary among rpg gamers and while i agree, three games at the same time based on that lore would be spreading it a bit thin EQ3 is something i see as very likely in the future.
I hardly think that is the reason it was succesfful. It was successful because it was fun and the genre was in its infancy. It was very different than UO, but they were both very successful at the time. There were almost no other choices then and very few people playing MMo's in general.
People didn't play EQ because they said, "Ha, finally an MMO without PVP."
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Am I the only one that reads the irony in that statement?
No, you're not the only one.
Old Everquest had two faces. One was a charming art-style crafted world, and the other an ugly hardcore punishing game. And yes I'd agree the latter I think few people would play.
Let me clarify my statements.
If SOE was to make a new fantasy based mmo I think they would be better servered with a new IP than returning to everquest.
No matter how powerful you think it is, the numbers and history suggest it may not be the best investment.
Everquest peeked around 550k users. The sequel peeked under 200k users in a time when the mmo market went from about 7 million users to 50+.
If the original IP went 550k to a sequel that struggled under 200k, what would you expect the third installment to do? If the everquest name can't bring at least as many players to the sequel as the original then I doubt it will somehow be strong enough a third time around and I doubt soe is aiming for games with a few hundred thousand players anymore.
Saying things like "not bad". "played by a few people" and "still makes money" are not qualities you look for in a powerful IP if you are going to invest tens of millions into a new mmo. I really think they would be better off with a new world and free themselves from all the predetermined expectations that come with the everquest franchise. As much as I do enjoy the fond memmories I have of norath, I think it is time to move on. The person who really put the life into that world has been gone for a long time and it shows.
It is unwise for EQ 1 and EQ 2 to compete with itself with an EQ 3.
We need the vision and talent of EQ 1 --yes, bring Mr. McQuaid back into the fold-- with innovation. We want community, content, creativity, and challenge.
But we also want accessibility, intuitive features, and customer support.
You mean the guy who totally screwed up Vanguard? Did you not read any of the controversy about how poorly he managed the development of that game?
Yes. I did.
But it is my point: we need innovation and immersion, not an old title.
It is unwise for EQ 1 and EQ 2 to compete with itself with an EQ 3.
We need the vision and talent of EQ 1 --yes, bring Mr. McQuaid back into the fold-- with innovation. We want community, content, creativity, and challenge.
But we also want accessibility, intuitive features, and customer support.
You mean the guy who totally screwed up Vanguard? Did you not read any of the controversy about how poorly he managed the development of that game?
Eh Vanguard was awful because of funding. The direction they were going and the ideas behind the game were excellent.
It is unwise for EQ 1 and EQ 2 to compete with itself with an EQ 3.
We need the vision and talent of EQ 1 --yes, bring Mr. McQuaid back into the fold-- with innovation. We want community, content, creativity, and challenge.
But we also want accessibility, intuitive features, and customer support.
You mean the guy who totally screwed up Vanguard? Did you not read any of the controversy about how poorly he managed the development of that game?
Eh Vanguard was awful because of funding. The direction they were going and the ideas behind the game were excellent.
Ten years ago.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
Another thing yo uhave to consider with SOEs games is that they have station pass/access where players pay one price and have access to several games including EQ1, EQ2, SWG, and Vanguard.......When people say EQ2 has 200k players its hard to say how many of those are EQ2 only and how many are station access.....SOE never releases their numbers for station access so we never really know how well any of their games is doing on its own.........
It is unwise for EQ 1 and EQ 2 to compete with itself with an EQ 3.
We need the vision and talent of EQ 1 --yes, bring Mr. McQuaid back into the fold-- with innovation. We want community, content, creativity, and challenge.
But we also want accessibility, intuitive features, and customer support.
You mean the guy who totally screwed up Vanguard? Did you not read any of the controversy about how poorly he managed the development of that game?
Eh Vanguard was awful because of funding. The direction they were going and the ideas behind the game were excellent.
Not really. I've played Vanguard since beta 3 and it was always going to fail. It just did not live up to the hype.
I agree the ideas were great, but it didn't work out. Why was that? In large part I think it was down to the management (i.e Brad and Co).
I personally think if an Everquest game was good enough then it would pull in people anyway. The problem is as you say the creators behind the magic of Everquest went a long time ago.
I think if they just took EQ up to velious and improved the graphics it would be awesome.
Even if thye didnt improve the graphics I'd play it.
I just think that newer MMOs don't have the depth of EQ. Like, it doesn't take you more than an hour to get from one location to another in WoW.
In EQ, you might have to run for 5-6 hours through dangerous terrain to get where you want to go. For instance, if i want to go to thurgadin, I have to go to NRo, to the ship, to some weird zone, to another, and to another, then to thurg.
But like wtf? In WoW you can travel instantly basically, it sucks. And all the instances are too convenient to get to. And they are all instanced, god it fucking sucks. Like, I remember going to TOFS for gear. It was really hardcore, because it was a long trip to get there and the zone was usually somewhat empty. Or to do CC you invis and fall down 100 floors.
Where is it in any MMO that you have to go through dangerous situations to get to good grind locations with good loot tables. Newer MMORPGs have basically eliminated loot tables from world spawns and instanced everything. If you want loot you have to do some sequential bullshit where you clear out the instance over and over. Whatever fucking happened to CAMPING locations? Fucking MMORPG makers are dumbasses because that was the most fun stuff ever. Forming groups, camping locations that you want to camp. And now everything is so fucking sequential for retarded players I hate it all
<deleted>
Vanguard is EQ3; still signing?
Joke aside, the brand "EverQuest" is plagued with a bad reputation, backed by a bad developper, and is a thing of the past which helped the genre grow.
Just let it die quietly.
My addiction History:
>> EQ1 2000-2004 - Shaman/Bard/Wizard/Monk - nolife raid-whore
>> WoW 2004-2009 + Cataclysm for 2 months - hardcore casual
>> Current status : done with MMO, too old for that crap.
I personally think if an Everquest game was good enough then it would pull in people anyway. The problem is as you say the creators behind the magic of Everquest went a long time ago.
I'm not sure if it would be better for them to get an established IP or make a new one. Everquest wasn't established when they first release that, so creating something new is a possibility.
I guess the question you have to ask yourself would be this. If a game was good enough, would it pull in more subscribers with the everquest brand on it or as some new property? Would the everquest brand make the game more attractive or would it hinder sales with players having preconceived expectations of what the game would be.
On the flip side if the new game wasn't so good at release and needed the standard 12+ months to get fixed after the launch, would people be more willing to give it time if it was labeled everquest?
I don't want this to be looked at as bashing eq, because I have a lot of great memories of the game and really enjoyed the world and the lore. EQ2 did ok with some of the lore, but it always had that recycled feeling to it. Like I was paying for a watered down version of the first game and never really was a living world of its own merits. It just didn't have the same feeling and it was obvious that the creative inspiration behind the IP was gone and was replaced with something else.
Thats because when everquest was first being made it was probably an exciting thing for the developers. As years go by it bacame more about making money and the fun factor and heart of making a game went away. I dont know about anyone else but everquest just had something about it that didnt make it feel fake.. boat travel, being able to attack randome town folk and dieing on accident, jumping off the boat in freeport and kill that stupid shark down in the water, getting someone you met to follow you to an unknown place then dieing couse your KOS or by some crazy big fugly creatur that comes out of nowhere, then saying "WTF happened lets go see what that that was " then going back and boom your dead again! That crap was exciting to me and that how i met some really good friends. These new game just done feel the same and nor does the current EQ its like they are just throwing shit in at random with the rong itentions. If their intention were to really make a game people would love, EQ3 would work with no doubt. But its all about money, and what they should do to get people to play or what not, marketing blahblah. What i feel... is for a good game to be made the people making have to really be thinking about that game and not how they are gona make money off it.
If that makes any sence lol its hard to really word out what i think in my head....kinda pisses me off really haha
This forum needs to learn the skill Necromancy Protection (Passive ability: Threads automatically become locked after 14 days have passed without a post.)
(only posting here because this thread's already at the top of the forum >.> )
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
EQ3 will copy as much from Vanguard as they can but with actual funding. It will do much better than EQ2. Although like any SOE game expect it to be released 1-2 years early in a horrible unfinished state.
EQ3 was called Vanguard.
And not only did it fail because it was bugged, it failed because no one wanted to put up with the long travel times, slow xp and timesinks. You know the increased Xp and rifts were put in after release in a patch right?
EQ3 would fail too, sorry, just because you never evolved and have fond memories of EQ doesn't mean that going back to 1996 playstyle is viable gameplay for a new MMO, it's not.
Edit: Thanks for bumping a month old thread.
I played Vanguard Beta. It didn't fail because of slow xp and time sinks. It had lots of other design problems. All playstyles are viable today, just as much as yesterday, if they are executed well.
I guess I would need to hear your definition of "fail" before I can adequately respond to this. If by fail, you mean fail to make enough money to support itself, than I would completely disagree. If you mean fail to reach WoW-type subscription numbers... well that's another story.
I would have to argue that the reason Vanguard did so poorly - maybe failed, maybe not - is solely due to its unfinished, buggy state at release. The game had an enormous following before release and sold something like 150,000 copies in its first month. Mind you, these initial subscriptions were from people who were well aware of the long travel times, slow xp, and timesinks (although it's up to the player to find something else to do beyond grinding the same mobs, such as exploring new regions and dungeons,etc.) because the game was designed from the bottom-up to have them. And they were probably also well aware of the appallingly buggy state of the game (if they read any forums anyway). Sure, the game is barely afloat today, but a terrible launch and a persistently buggy state have absolutely everything to do with that.
For this reason, I would argue that EQ3 would probably not fail as you've claimed. But then again, I use failure to describe a game that fails to make money and cannot support itself and a development team to add meaningful content. There's no question a game of that type would be very niche and appeal to a small segment of gamers, so if failure means something else to you, then you might be right. However, I've played a fair amount of EQ2, which is considered a failure by many, yet they continue to trot out new content and new expansions, and the game is doing very well. It will never come anywhere near WoW's subscription numbers but it obviously doesn't need to in order to succeed.
My two cents anyway.
Edit: I probably should have let this thread die. Sorry everyone.
Why would anyone make a MMO that few wants to play? Just the horrible mob grind and down time will scare away most of the customers.