Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Is EQNext Vaporware?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
So a kickstarter for EQN but it gives you another game (Landmark)? Do you even listen/read your own words? You sure complain allot about buying into Landmark. If you did thats your own problem. If you did and you are not happy, get a refund. DGC was very clear it was an unfinished game that wont be fully developed till EQN is released. They were very clear it was mostly about getting the tools into the hands of people who wanted to help build EQN. People who complain about the situation ether cant read or are just looking for a reason to bitch. No one is stuck with Landmark, as its a F2P game that you can get a full refund if you are done helping make EQN. How this is a problem I dont get?
How is ACE selling their mothers?
I liked his persona, don't know him personally so all I have is what he presented. If he added a ton to the project, unfortunate he is gone, but unlike many smaller games in the works, he nor Butler seemed to be the one envisioning the future of gaming. The few fairly forward thinking hyped features (voxels and AI) were outside party tech and everything else is cherry picking features that seem to work in other games. All together it is is a new and great sounding design, but nothing really groundbreaking. If they were the ones to think of bringing it all together, good job, but once it is all brought together, it is up to other folks to actual create it.
I believe that Landmark was a sloppy way to get players to help create for EQN, but I don't see it as a kickstarter or crowdfunding.
Not all companies/games are equal. Some handle F2P and cash shops great and others horrible. Some handle crowdfunding and early access great and others horrible. Same goes for games of all types as long as I can remember.
I'm done rewarding big companies with the hope that after 30 days I won't realize the product isn't what was sold.
I backed Crowfall because the team behind it has a lot of credit in my book and they've handled themselves well in my eyes. They continue to be a lot more transparent and honest compared to bigger name studios. Flat out saying they don't know the answer to things or making comments that instantly turn folks away and being okay with it. They aren't pretending to be something they aren't.
If Landmark or EQN were actually crowdfunded, I'd need to see a lot more to back them as the company and devs don't have much credit to me. Fond memories with EQ 10+ years ago and decent experience with PS2 don't mean a lot.
The market seems to be moving more and more toward small projects as the big name titles aren't doing as well as I'd assume were expected. Pay models seem to be changing as well and people can either accept this or not.
Don't want to reward or take a risk with something? Don't have to. People are able to wait until the "finished" launch of games they want to try and give it a go. But my hope is that with players getting in early, the actual launch and future of the product won't see the same drop off of players and these games won't have to do huge design shifts to try to get people to play. Much rather support a company that openly says it doesn't need to appeal to the masses and is making the game they want, not the lowest common denominator.
You still think there are two different games right now?
If you want to believe that a team which twice failed to make EQN, facing deep layoffs, sale of the company or possibly closing down.... somehow thought they had time, resources and talent to instead build two completely different games, I think you are deceiving yourself.
All they are doing is rebranding work from landmark to eqn, same team, same dev servers, same code base. Some new things will be bolted onto landmark code base and be rebranded as EQN, while the existing landmark withers and dies as it no longer sees development. EQN is still a concept at this point.
Also, no I didn't buy landmark. I don't believe in rewarding big developers with money for incomplete games as it will only encourage them to continue pushing out incomplete games. Promises of future awesome content and other nonsense are meaningless, especially with such a bad history of under delivering this company has.
The irony is that landmark players are most likely going to have to pay for the game twice if they want to pay EQN when it gets released. What a sham.
He did right with EQ2?????? WOW just WOW!!
He was a total disaster for EQ2, everything he did made the game worse. He just threw out thought bubbles and let the team scramble to make them work, without any thought of how they would impact the game. He is the worst kind of leader energetic and incompetent. But as a flim flam sales person he excells.
They dont have the same classes and races. One is a building game the other is an mmoRPG. If you dont get how different the two games are you have read nothing about them or you are ignoring the facts to make an argument.
P.S. you keep saying EQN failed twice but you got nothing to prove that, till you do stop spewing lies. lol Show me one fact on the net to back that up and I will buy into it. Changing your mind is not failing.
RED: Reread my post you quoted, there is no paying for Landmark. Its a F2P game, you want your money back, you can get it at any time. They set a price tag to make sure only people who really wanted to build or test EQN systems stayed. Thats what they got right now, the community is great. Why would you not have to spend money on EQN? Its a different game with its own content. =-P
While saying it failed twice is a bit strong we were told at the 2013 SOE live that two previous versions of the 'next Everquest' had been abandoned and that they had started again with what they were calling 'Everquest Next'. It also looks like much of the 2013 version has hit the bit bucket and they are now continuing to work on EQN 3.5.
I also agree that Landmark is not EQN, it contains a lot of the code of EQN as of its launch date plus a lot more building tools, but it is a definite fork of the project which is now two games with different models. Commonality yes, testing of some EQN ideas yes, identical no.
For me, the question is not whether it's vaporware, but whether or not the game that they're preaching about gets delivered.
There *will* be an Everquest Next that gets released. The game has been officially announced. The IP is famous/legendary and, to SoE/Daybreak's credit, they are very well funded.
What they've said/implied EQ Next is going to be is this unbelievably massive (Skyrim x1000), vibrant sandbox world where you create a character and essentially pick your entire agenda from top to bottom. Are you a Dark Elf Cleric of Innoruuk out to spread dark-elf influence as far as it can go? Then great, gather like-minded individuals, go to Nektulos Forest, and start conquering. Are you an Ogre who fled his homeland, hoping to make find a home amongst the Wood Elves of Kelethin? Great. Go to Faydark, ally with any wood elf who'll speak to you, and help them drive the Crushbone Orcs off their skirmish lines. It'll be a long road to acceptance, but in time, you'll become a legend there. Or are you a human shadow knight who has no alligence to anyone and will just join a Merc Company that sells their blades to the highest bidder on a day/week contract?
Every day, a new threat emerges. Every day you don't log in is one day your faction is fighting without a champion. It's not just like they can 'pug' a replacement for you on raid night. The entire world will *miss* you. And truly, that'll be an awesome feeling.
The question is do they deliver *this* game... or do they get to a point where it's 'ship something before this X-Mas or else'... and just give us some tired Themepark that might as well be called Everquest 3.
We have seen many videos of the emergent AI and thats being developed in house now. Picking up from where they were after letting Storybricks go. Since then we have not heard anything on how thats going. I would be happy to even hear what problems they face in that front. They say they are making the same game from when they were SoE and would let us know if that ever changes but it sure would be good to see how thats going =-) I wonder if they are going to share any major info with us this year at all lol.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Again, you are talking about what the developers want to do in the future as if it is something that has already happened. The things you are pointing to that will make these "different" games do not exist yet and honestly those things are just going to be added to the Landmark code and rebranded as EQN. They could just as easily be added to Landmark wth some cosmetic changes and it would be EQN. It is all the same code at this point.
Why do you think Landmark development is ending while EQN development is now starting?
Landmark is pretty much just phase1 of EQN. Landmark is being abandoned and all the work is being rebranded as EQN. Smoke and mirrors, nothing more.
P.S. FACT: The teams was twice tasked with building an EQN game and twice those efforts were thrown out. They did not succeed in achieving their goal. That is a fact, not an insult. How else would you refer to a team that spends nearly 5 years and produced nothing?
RED: The fact that you have to spend money to get the game should be enough to end any thought of claiming the game is free to play. Loss for words at the spin.
I agree that the team does seem to be working on what looks like EQN 3.5.
Look at it this way. The team has been focused on making what they call Landmark for the last few years. Development for Landmark is ending. Development for EQN is starting. That EQN development is building systems in the landmark code for what will eventually become EQN.
If Landmark ends as EQN starts and EQN is just evolving the Landmark code, are they really 2 different games or is Landmark just the first leg of EQN development?
You do get the difference between a building game and a mmoRPG, right? 2/3 of the content in Landmark is about building that is not even a part of EQN. You do get Landmark is SciFi/Fantasy and EQN is pure fantasy? Or do I need to break that down for you? Have you even played Landmark because the more you talk about it the more naive you sound on the subject.
I think you are re-writing history here. The launch of Landmark was a combination of two things:
This is the big question for me as well.
On paper, EQN sounds great for many reasons but like all games isn't for everyone. In reality, little of the actual stand out features hyped have actually been made reality for us to see and interact with.
While I can't see the future, my logic tells me EQN will release. What it will look like is still a huge unknown and the longer it takes, the greater my doubt will be. Although, if at the end of the road we are presented with something close to what they announced, I will hopefully be very pleased.
While they've shown a couple (two?) "demos" of the AI, neither one gave any real picture of what it would be like in a world with thousands of players and tons of NPCs/Mobs interacting together.
One was a slide driven, virtual Risk example and another was a staged setup that looked like the typical event that takes place in games on a timer, after a quest is completed, faction is gained, etc.
We have yet to see a real in-game demo or proof that they are able to create something that doesn't end up looking like the typical staged dummy AI on the front end while supposedly being complex and "dynamic" on the back end.
Actually wish they hadn't shown the DE demo as it was extremely mundane for me and if that is what they think is "next-gen" I'm pretty sure I won't have my "socks blown off" with the final product.
I agree with what you said for the most part, but that last part has a long way to go before becoming reality. Smedley could of said EQN was coming to Gameboy Advance, doesn't make it happen. So much has happened since then and considering some of the other comments he made (H1Z1 = new home for SWG fans) I would take the EQN on PS4 with a huge grain of salt. They have to get it out for PC before even tackling that and as they've also said they aren't currently working on a console version at this time, I wouldn't get my hopes up. Actually think Landmark would be easier to port on top of that.
As I've called you before (hope it isn't hurtful), you are Captain Obvious. They've said from the start that Landmark will set the groundwork for EQN.
If you take X make a copy of X and then add in ABCDEFG1234567, the 2nd is not the same as the 1st. They are two different items based on the same foundation. Now if all they were to do is copy/paste Landmark onto a new server or use the current ones, add in Dark Elves and call it a day, that would be one thing, but it seems their intention is to make a full dev created mmorpg based in the EQverse. Obviously we don't know what that will look like, but the assumption that EQN will just be Landmark with a little EQ sprinkled in seems rather narrow.
Very possible they could put 100% of the efforts into EQN and close down Landmark, actually would be a pretty good idea until at least EQN is out and making some profit. As is though, to me Landmark is a stand alone game while being a working "alpha" of sorts for EQN mechanics and features. Double dipping has pros and cons for sure.
DayZ, Dota, Dota2, League of Legends aren't much different. I wouldn't call DayZ and ARMA2 the same game.
Not sure where the smoke andmirrors comes into play. Landmark is missing AI/DM tools and that's about it from what was promised. They've said that once missing and future features are ready after being worked on more with EQN in mind, they'll make their way into Landmark. But it is still a closed beta that people have to buy into to participate and there shouldn't be any bait and switch happening. No idea what the hold up is with the AI, but I'm assuming they bit off more than they could chew.
Even though it was Landmark first then EQN, they've shown assets that are clearly EQN only so someone has been working on EQN specific stuff to some degree from the start at some capacity. So the fork started a long while back, but the speed at which devs have gone down the different paths hasn't been the same.
P.S. From what I can see, the two previous versions were run and made up of folks that either no longer are on the project or at least aren't calling the shots. Which to me says that upper management didn't have confidence in them continuing as is and your "fail" view isn't off by much.
They did produce something, simply wasn't up to what was needed/wanted.
As the current team is run by a completely different crew in the lead positions (except Rosie), I don't see the point of beating this to death.
Team A and B didn't cut it. Team C =/= Team A/B. Not sure what you do for a living, but in many professions "failing" is simply part of the daily process. Be it start from scratch of make adjustments, that is how the creative process works.
Unless you really believe that every single thing ever created was perfect the first time around. FXIV:AAR would like to have a word with you.
Regardless if it is the same company running things, they had two unsuccessful attempt and are now working on a third which to this point is still on the path presented from Aug 2013. What happened 2, 5, 10 years earlier by a different group of individuals doesn't seem relevant at all.
Does the team of today's Ford Mustang take flack for the 1974 team?
Red: Their original goal was to release both F2P. Those that wish to spend nothing for at least the initial install are more than welcome to wait until such time. The fact is you don't "have" to spend anything as far as we know at launch. If you want in before then, ya their is a cost. Why someone would want to pay to play/test an unfinished product is crazy I know, but seems plenty of folks enjoy it across many games/genres. Both could end up being B2P, sub, F2P, or any other pay model. At this point we don't know, but it isn't even an option to play either in the launch edition.
Everything you talk about in EQN is still just a concept, so how you speak so matter of factly existing in EQN is a mystery.
The point you keep missing is that Landmark and EQN are not currently 2 different games. EQN doesn't exist and it is being built by working on what exists in Landmark. How much is removed or added is moot.
Landmark was just a phase of building EQN, one that fizzled out pretty hard.
First I think you overlook the desperate situation SOE was in for revenue. No one wants to release games in the condition H1Z1 or Landmark were in. That was the determine factor above anything else. Desperate times, desperate measures
To be clear, I'm not saying that everything in Landmark will be in EQN. I'm saying there is no other fork somewhere that has been consecutively developed as a separate game during the same time as Landmark. Landmark is where the team is starting with EQN.
Landmark will continue to exist as a public test bed for EQN concepts, but as a game it is effectively dead. Anyone who has played Vanguard, Matrix, Free Realms, SWG, etch knows exactly what that past producers letter meant for Landmark.
However, for those that want to hang on to the notion that Landmark is somehow a forked game, that just means this team has failed for the third consecutive time trying to make a marketable product/game. Beta or not, it is clear the game does not have anything to attract or retain more than a hundred or so people. .
Does anyone really think this company would ever think a development team that was so off course making one game and during a time of critical failure of the division would have time/resources to fork their project and create two games at the same time.
agreed at 100% EQN is no more than Landmark. LM is EQN, no more no less.
"Anyone who has played Vanguard, Matrix, Free Realms, SWG, etch knows exactly what that past producers letter meant for Landmark."
THIS
I had full access, played SWG VG and even Free realms, there's one thing I know: these guys destroys all the games and project they touch. Don't forget SWG, VG, Matrix, Free Realms, The Agency syndroms. Only naives can believe on these guys. SOE has been sold for 2 bucks, it's over.
[mod edit]You cant take two stands, EQN and Landmark are the same game and EQN doesn't exist. [mod edit]
I will try to be more clear so you can understand what I am trying to convey, but please stop being so nasty. it doesn't make you right and only derails decent discussion.
EQN is currently being developed from what exists in Landmark. They are one project, not two as you seem to think. Does that clear up your misunderstanding?
We have the last ultimate fanboy. Nice.
Blocked, I won't loose 1 min more with this cy and those guys. SOE is a dead company, an empty company, all leaders have been FIRED by DBG, nothing changed since MONTHS for H1Z1 and Landmark, EQN is an empty shell. It's OVER terminado FINISHED niente nada. hasta la vista baby
As i'm a gamer and I think a nice guy I gave them a LAST CHANCE with Landmark and H1Z1 and paid for them. Both alpha are simply desastrous. Landmark has NOTHING to offer, servers are EMPTY and the "GAME"' if I call this a game needs an enormous computer to play.Even with my coreI5 Nvidia2 Go I have lag gliches etc. On H1Z1 maps are SO SMALL and zombies'IA so ridiculous everyone BUT LAST CHEATERS left the game for ARK.
TERMINARES/ OVER/ USCITA/FINI/DOWN/