EQ3 - unless its a survival game wouldnt make any sense.
MMORPGs have lost almost all popularity, and on top of that are expensive to develop and take years of dev time.
I dont see any western company unless its an indie effort making another mmorpg for a long time.
Except for Amazon games which is building one right now.
Nope - that wont be a MMORPG at all.
"open-ended sandbox game set in a living, cursed land" - its going to be like Ark probably.
Where did Amazon say that New World will be a MMORPG?
You always put your opinions over as facts.
''New World, an open-ended, sandbox MMO set in a fictional 17th century colonial America''.
Thats from Amazon.co.uk You say ''game'' they say ''MMO''
From their description i consider it an MMO. The whole MMORPG term is not as definded as it once was. But its going to be a huge online world where you can do what you want. Including roleplay i assume? Thats how they described it, so why nit pick with me?
You come off as very cold and hostile in a lot of your posts.
Yay, founder pack for nothing really.... tried to support EQNext and this was all we got. Nice assets but not enough "Game"
Then stop buying that crap.
I bought Landmark early access when i thought i was helping them to make EQN. Felt good for a while until gradually i started to smell something fishy. The whole experience left me pretty jaded with EA deals.
"open-ended sandbox game set in a living, cursed land" - its going to be like Ark probably.
Where did Amazon say that New World will be a MMORPG?
On the very first part of the blurb you quoted that you conveniently omitted?
"Carve your own destiny in New World, a massively multiplayer, open-ended sandbox game set in a living, cursed land."
Crucible is their survival game.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
EQ3 - unless its a survival game wouldnt make any sense.
MMORPGs have lost almost all popularity, and on top of that are expensive to develop and take years of dev time.
I dont see any western company unless its an indie effort making another mmorpg for a long time.
Except for Amazon games which is building one right now.
Nope - that wont be a MMORPG at all.
"open-ended sandbox game set in a living, cursed land" - its going to be like Ark probably.
Where did Amazon say that New World will be a MMORPG?
You always put your opinions over as facts.
''New World, an open-ended, sandbox MMO set in a fictional 17th century colonial America''.
Thats from Amazon.co.uk You say ''game'' they say ''MMO''
From their description i consider it an MMO. The whole MMORPG term is not as definded as it once was. But its going to be a huge online world where you can do what you want. Including roleplay i assume? Thats how they described it, so why nit pick with me?
You come off as very cold and hostile in a lot of your posts.
My quote was from Amazon US site - so its not ME saying game, its Amazon Studios saying GAME.
I trust US site over UK as the studio is in US.
They said in their video we are all playing together and we basically make the content and decide what we do to each other. Its going to be online, over the interwebs. We can play the game however we want to play it, so i can roleplay if i choose to. They said its a game. So from their description of their ''game'', i take it to be a Massively multiplayer online role playing ''game''.
EQ3 - unless its a survival game wouldnt make any sense.
MMORPGs have lost almost all popularity, and on top of that are expensive to develop and take years of dev time.
I dont see any western company unless its an indie effort making another mmorpg for a long time.
Except for Amazon games which is building one right now.
Nope - that wont be a MMORPG at all.
"open-ended sandbox game set in a living, cursed land" - its going to be like Ark probably.
Where did Amazon say that New World will be a MMORPG?
You always put your opinions over as facts.
''New World, an open-ended, sandbox MMO set in a fictional 17th century colonial America''.
Thats from Amazon.co.uk You say ''game'' they say ''MMO''
From their description i consider it an MMO. The whole MMORPG term is not as definded as it once was. But its going to be a huge online world where you can do what you want. Including roleplay i assume? Thats how they described it, so why nit pick with me?
You come off as very cold and hostile in a lot of your posts.
My quote was from Amazon US site - so its not ME saying game, its Amazon Studios saying GAME.
I trust US site over UK as the studio is in US.
They said in their video we are all playing together and we basically make the content and decide what we do to each other. Its going to be online, over the interwebs. We can play the game however we want to play it, so i can roleplay if i choose to. They said its a game. So from their description of their ''game'', i take it to be a Massively multiplayer online role playing ''game''.
ARK fits all of that criteria and its not a MMORPG. Same with DAYZ or Rust etc...
MMORPG and MMO are two entirely different things. You said MMORPG, Amazon never used that term to describe New World.
I just dont get why we have to have this back and forth over terminology. Its not the first time this has happened with you. If its about having the last reply then reply to this and lets be done with it.
EQ3 - unless its a survival game wouldnt make any sense.
MMORPGs have lost almost all popularity, and on top of that are expensive to develop and take years of dev time.
I dont see any western company unless its an indie effort making another mmorpg for a long time.
Except for Amazon games which is building one right now.
Nope - that wont be a MMORPG at all.
"open-ended sandbox game set in a living, cursed land" - its going to be like Ark probably.
Where did Amazon say that New World will be a MMORPG?
You always put your opinions over as facts.
''New World, an open-ended, sandbox MMO set in a fictional 17th century colonial America''.
Thats from Amazon.co.uk You say ''game'' they say ''MMO''
From their description i consider it an MMO. The whole MMORPG term is not as definded as it once was. But its going to be a huge online world where you can do what you want. Including roleplay i assume? Thats how they described it, so why nit pick with me?
You come off as very cold and hostile in a lot of your posts.
My quote was from Amazon US site - so its not ME saying game, its Amazon Studios saying GAME.
I trust US site over UK as the studio is in US.
They said in their video we are all playing together and we basically make the content and decide what we do to each other. Its going to be online, over the interwebs. We can play the game however we want to play it, so i can roleplay if i choose to. They said its a game. So from their description of their ''game'', i take it to be a Massively multiplayer online role playing ''game''.
ARK fits all of that criteria and its not a MMORPG. Same with DAYZ or Rust etc...
MMORPG and MMO are two entirely different things. You said MMORPG, Amazon never used that term to describe New World.
You know as well as I do that reviewers and fans mislabel these things all the time. But developers very seldom do.
I can't think of any examples of a survival game where the developer themselves have used the phrase "massively multiplayer" to describe their game. Can you?
It's a lot more reasonable to assume at this point based on how Amazon Games has described their game that it will be an MMORPG. You're the one who's spinning it as survival.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I think the chance of DBG investing the money needed to make EQ3 - rounded down - is 0%. Even if it was an EQ themed H1Z1 I'm not sure it would happen.
Happy to be wrong but simply can't see it happening.
Classic example of unrealized potential. It's a shame too considering it was a unique product in an industry with a lot of carbon copies. Hopefully another like it emerges.
Classic example of unrealized potential. It's a shame too considering it was a unique product in an industry with a lot of carbon copies. Hopefully another like it emerges.
I had a lot of hopes for EQN. It was such a blow to the western industry when SOE sold out
I just dont get why we have to have this back and forth over terminology. Its not the first time this has happened with you. If its about having the last reply then reply to this and lets be done with it.
for sure! it's god damned annoying. i think it's more about having to be right than anything, even when you might be wrong.
Welp... that took long enough. Are they looking back into EQ3 already?
More of a chance that they're looking to sunset EQ1 and EQ2 as well.
I think you may be correct.
There will be a regular report on every game. Think Steam Stats or Steam Spy but with details on how much each game is making and how much each game is costing to operate.
DBG's non-specific costs - office rent, heating, senior management etc. - will be spread apportioned across all of their games. Landmark's closure will make it harder for the other games.
I think the next step for EQ1 / EQ2 could be server mergers.
EQ3 - unless its a survival game wouldnt make any sense.
MMORPGs have lost almost all popularity, and on top of that are expensive to develop and take years of dev time.
I dont see any western company unless its an indie effort making another mmorpg for a long time.
Except for Amazon games which is building one right now.
Nope - that wont be a MMORPG at all.
"open-ended sandbox game set in a living, cursed land" - its going to be like Ark probably.
Where did Amazon say that New World will be a MMORPG?
You always put your opinions over as facts.
''New World, an open-ended, sandbox MMO set in a fictional 17th century colonial America''.
Thats from Amazon.co.uk You say ''game'' they say ''MMO''
From their description i consider it an MMO. The whole MMORPG term is not as definded as it once was. But its going to be a huge online world where you can do what you want. Including roleplay i assume? Thats how they described it, so why nit pick with me?
You come off as very cold and hostile in a lot of your posts.
My quote was from Amazon US site - so its not ME saying game, its Amazon Studios saying GAME.
I trust US site over UK as the studio is in US.
They said in their video we are all playing together and we basically make the content and decide what we do to each other. Its going to be online, over the interwebs. We can play the game however we want to play it, so i can roleplay if i choose to. They said its a game. So from their description of their ''game'', i take it to be a Massively multiplayer online role playing ''game''.
ARK fits all of that criteria and its not a MMORPG. Same with DAYZ or Rust etc...
MMORPG and MMO are two entirely different things. You said MMORPG, Amazon never used that term to describe New World.
You know as well as I do that reviewers and fans mislabel these things all the time. But developers very seldom do.
I can't think of any examples of a survival game where the developer themselves have used the phrase "massively multiplayer" to describe their game. Can you?
It's a lot more reasonable to assume at this point based on how Amazon Games has described their game that it will be an MMORPG. You're the one who's spinning it as survival.
Imagine Minecraft hosted servers that support several thousand players
Now read this again "a massively multiplayer, open-ended sandbox game"
Perfect description - and it's not even remotely close to being a MMORPG.
There's a very GOOD reason why Amazon didn't use MMORPG sandbox to describe their New World game - because MMORPGs are very specific in terms of features:
- RPG stat based characters - STR, DEX, STA, INT, WIS, AC, etc.... - Multiple classes and races - Progression based systems like XP, crafting, also gear - Dungeons, Raids etc..
New world won't have the elements of a MMORPG, hence why they never called it that - rather they opted for very vague ""a massively multiplayer, open-ended sandbox game"
Which again could be MMO version of minecraft (without the voxels, with realistic graphics and medieval setting)
Still waiting for an example of a survival game developer referring to their game as "massively multiplayer" with or without the RPG part.
You're just spinning shit because it fits with your current schtick that no AAA studio in the West could possibly be interested in developing an MMORPG.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Classic example of unrealized potential. It's a shame too considering it was a unique product in an industry with a lot of carbon copies. Hopefully another like it emerges.
I had a lot of hopes for EQN. It was such a blow to the western industry when SOE sold out
I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean CN taking over that wasn't the call anyone at the entity of SoE/DGC's. Sony needed to restructure after losing a ton of money. They created four "pillars" of interest which did not include an online game division so they sold it to CN. Had they not, every DGC title may have shut down. If anything what happened to EQN/LM was bad timing and series of events.
I'm betting EQ3 announcement sooner or later. Not to mention whatever Myth Warden is.
You seem really out of touch with this. This was EQ3, it failed, hard.
Daybreak has neither the money or talent (let alone the player good will) to make EQ3 happen (or try to happen, again). If they did they wouldn't have cancelled EQNext. Most of which was built by players.
I'm perfectly in touch with this. I'm willing to bet Columbus Nova will want to get everything they can from the EverQiest brand to return on their investment. What kind of game EQ3 will be? No clue. But it's their only truly valuable IP, and it will be used again.
Try to be excellent to everyone you meet. You never know what someone else has seen or endured.
Comments
''New World, an open-ended, sandbox MMO set in a fictional 17th century colonial America''.
Thats from Amazon.co.uk
You say ''game'' they say ''MMO''
From their description i consider it an MMO. The whole MMORPG term is not as definded as it once was.
But its going to be a huge online world where you can do what you want. Including roleplay i assume?
Thats how they described it, so why nit pick with me?
You come off as very cold and hostile in a lot of your posts.
This was borderline scamware from go: getting people to pay for testing systems and developing content to be used in a follow on game.
Hopefully we will not see more of the same in the future.
"Carve your own destiny in New World, a massively multiplayer, open-ended sandbox game set in a living, cursed land."
Crucible is their survival game.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
So from their description of their ''game'', i take it to be a Massively multiplayer online role playing ''game''.
Its not the first time this has happened with you.
If its about having the last reply then reply to this and lets be done with it.
I can't think of any examples of a survival game where the developer themselves have used the phrase "massively multiplayer" to describe their game. Can you?
It's a lot more reasonable to assume at this point based on how Amazon Games has described their game that it will be an MMORPG. You're the one who's spinning it as survival.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Happy to be wrong but simply can't see it happening.
Classic example of unrealized potential. It's a shame too considering it was a unique product in an industry with a lot of carbon copies. Hopefully another like it emerges.
https://games.amazon.com/games
DBG's non-specific costs - office rent, heating, senior management etc. - will be spread apportioned across all of their games. Landmark's closure will make it harder for the other games.
I think the next step for EQ1 / EQ2 could be server mergers.
You're just spinning shit because it fits with your current schtick that no AAA studio in the West could possibly be interested in developing an MMORPG.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
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.
I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean CN taking over that wasn't the call anyone at the entity of SoE/DGC's. Sony needed to restructure after losing a ton of money. They created four "pillars" of interest which did not include an online game division so they sold it to CN. Had they not, every DGC title may have shut down. If anything what happened to EQN/LM was bad timing and series of events.
I'm perfectly in touch with this. I'm willing to bet Columbus Nova will want to get everything they can from the EverQiest brand to return on their investment. What kind of game EQ3 will be? No clue. But it's their only truly valuable IP, and it will be used again.
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.
Maybe all the players who played Landmark will come back to EQ / EQ2 and revive the genre.
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
Did they happen to mention if they're going with the current trend of arcade style game play or something a bit slower paced?
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.
Can't see Landmark players are going to make any difference (especially if the Steam stats are a good indication).