Howdy, Stranger!

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

Game to Close on February 21, 2017 - Landmark - MMORPG.com

12467

Comments

  • LeirosLeiros Member UncommonPosts: 281
    I think we can all agree that pretty much everything Smed touches turns to poop. Even Pixel Mage games wasn't able to pull off Hero's Song. I should have learned my lesson back in 2005 when Smed ruined SWG and laughed at the fans. Ah sweet karma.
  • lahnmirlahnmir Member LegendaryPosts: 5,054
    EQ has never been my favourite franchise, but seeing it being abused, canceled and shut down as has happened with the last few entries is just plain sad. I tried landmark for a bit but its biggest allure was really giving a glimpse of what EQN might be. As soon as the whole EQN thing went down there was nothing keeping me in Landmark anymore.

    And a new EQ announcement soon? I'll start believing again when I have a functioning client on my computer with a written statement that it will not shut down in the next 5 years while having a proper staff maintaining and expanding the game. They Break gets zero of my trust, so far they have only been destroying, not building.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'

    Kyleran on yours sincerely 


    'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'

    Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...



    'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless. 

    It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.

    It is just huge resource waste....'

    Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer

  • TalonsinTalonsin Member EpicPosts: 3,619
    Very sad, so many people had such high hopes for this and EQN.  I was really hoping this/EQN was going to be the big break out hit.  So many good ideas, now wasted.
    "Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game."  - SEANMCAD

  • ReizlaReizla Member RarePosts: 4,092
    No surprise there. SOE didn't really work on it (as well as EQNext), and DBG had this piece of crap handed to figure out what to do. Instead of putting some REAL EFFORT into it (as well as EQNext), DBG decided to kill EQNext and rush the turd Landmark.

    I feel for all those who fell for the vaporware and paid $100 to support both Landmark and EQNext.
  • TheocritusTheocritus Member LegendaryPosts: 10,014
    EQN/Landmark was only going to resemble EQ in name only....It was a failure from day 1 and Landmark was an obvious cash grab by a company notorious for just taking money.....
  • TheocritusTheocritus Member LegendaryPosts: 10,014
    Leiros said:
    I think we can all agree that pretty much everything Smed touches turns to poop. Even Pixel Mage games wasn't able to pull off Hero's Song. I should have learned my lesson back in 2005 when Smed ruined SWG and laughed at the fans. Ah sweet karma.
    Unfortunately he has been collecting a nice paycheck for many years for basically just talking garbage.
  • BurntvetBurntvet Member RarePosts: 3,465
    edited January 2017
    Reizla said:
    /snip
    I feel for all those who fell for the vaporware and paid $100 to support both Landmark and EQNext.
    I don't.

    Anyone with a brain knew or should have known by looking at the stuff coming out of SOE/DBG that paying actual money for Landmark was foolish and a waste. It was clear that at best, Landmark was a testbed for EQ3, and not designed as an actual stand alone game.

    So the idiots that bought the BS for Landmark/EQ3 and actually paid money, deserve what they got. Being stupid should have consequences.

  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    I foresee a mobile game based off of landmark and it's assets. It will be f2p with a heavy handed cash shop that may or may not allow you to buy armour and weapons to skip some grind :pleased:
    I laughed pretty hard at seeing that everything will be sold for 1 DBC (Dirt Bag Credit)

    On another note @BillMurphy you made my night when you put @DmKano is his place. 

  • kjempffkjempff Member RarePosts: 1,760
    It sucked the life out of EqNext, and now that there is no more blood the leech itself dies. Was that too nasty?

    Anyways, Landmark was a mistake from day one. Some said it was a sign of a very strong team to be able to create two games at the same time, one to be a true next gem mmorpg which alone would have been a massive undertaking. Bad decisions on top of bad decisions, and not daring to question themselves and correct and adapt. Ok now I am just being plain mean.. sorry it is easy to judge on hindsight.
  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521
    Burntvet said:
    Reizla said:
    /snip
    I feel for all those who fell for the vaporware and paid $100 to support both Landmark and EQNext.
    I don't.

    Anyone with a brain knew or should have known by looking at the stuff coming out of SOE/DBG that paying actual money for Landmark was foolish and a waste. It was clear that at best, Landmark was a testbed for EQ3, and not designed as an actual stand alone game.

    So the idiots that bought the BS for Landmark/EQ3 and actually paid money, deserve what they got. Being stupid should have consequences.


    This is just incorrect. They stated in the PC Gamer article that LM was intended to be a standalone title. That said I did pay the $100 for Landmark (no one paid anything for EQN/3) and felt I got more than enough enjoyment out of it. I think your gross generalization and disrespect for a whole group of people you couldn't possibly know is pretty immature.
  • lahnmirlahnmir Member LegendaryPosts: 5,054
    edited January 2017
    Aelious said:
    Burntvet said:
    Reizla said:
    /snip
    I feel for all those who fell for the vaporware and paid $100 to support both Landmark and EQNext.
    I don't.

    Anyone with a brain knew or should have known by looking at the stuff coming out of SOE/DBG that paying actual money for Landmark was foolish and a waste. It was clear that at best, Landmark was a testbed for EQ3, and not designed as an actual stand alone game.

    So the idiots that bought the BS for Landmark/EQ3 and actually paid money, deserve what they got. Being stupid should have consequences.


    This is just incorrect. They stated in the PC Gamer article that LM was intended to be a standalone title. That said I did pay the $100 for Landmark (no one paid anything for EQN/3) and felt I got more than enough enjoyment out of it. I think your gross generalization and disrespect for a whole group of people you couldn't possibly know is pretty immature.
    He's not immature, he's a 'vet.' Although judging from his rude post he's just burned and nothing else.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'

    Kyleran on yours sincerely 


    'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'

    Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...



    'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless. 

    It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.

    It is just huge resource waste....'

    Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer

  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,332
    Landmark was NEVER a game and was never going to be aw game,it was Smedley's lame gimmick to exploit gamer's for money to build Next.
    The franchise is dead in the water it is sad,i have had no desire to ever go back to EQ2 and i spent many hours/days/months/years in there.
    It was sort of unique and  nice in the early days but now i look back and EQ1/2 were sloppy game designs,just a bunch of random maps splattered all over in a messy laid out system.DB and it's small team of leftovers will NEVER realize this franchise ever again,just some cheap lame expacks for EQ1/2 and nothing more.

    DB is hurting for money,so i wouldn't put it past them to take those few player made assets and try to salvage some EQ3 game,i know i wouldn't support it,i have about 2% confidence DB will ever do anything remotely good ever again.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • BruceYeeBruceYee Member EpicPosts: 2,556
    edited January 2017
    DMKano said:


    @DmKano - I have very clearly been told by AGS employees that New World is indeed an MMORPG.



    And I have been very clearly told that it's not going to be a traditional MMORPG (like WoW, EQ series etc...) at all.

    So lets wait and see what happens, ok?

    Still a long time away - so the devs can sway it one way or another - we'll see what kind of game it ends up being.
    In the original stream they called it a "MMO Game" so it's good news to hear that they are now saying it's a MMORPG. I'm thinking now that it may end up being similar to Mortal Online.
  • Mackaveli44Mackaveli44 Member RarePosts: 717

    Forgrimm said:



    LrdEtrius said:


    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.



    EQ2, possibly, EQ1, no. EQ1 is one of their highest populated games they have.
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 44,059
    DMKano said:


    @DmKano - I have very clearly been told by AGS employees that New World is indeed an MMORPG.



    And I have been very clearly told that it's not going to be a traditional MMORPG (like WoW, EQ series etc...) at all.

    So lets wait and see what happens, ok?

    Still a long time away - so the devs can sway it one way or another - we'll see what kind of game it ends up being.
    While we know what Bill does for a living hence giving him access to inside information, I don't think you have ever stated what it is you do that gives you such insights.


    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • psiicpsiic Member RarePosts: 1,642
    Glad I demanded a refund when they announced the sale to Daybreak.
  • goozmaniagoozmania Member RarePosts: 394
    Let's not forget they already have the assets for the original eq3 that Smedley cancelled because it wasn't "different enough" and Smedley's crap creation eqn, which was cancelled because it sucked.
    Assuming their original version had been in development for 3+ years before being shelved, they could have something pretty substantial already.
  • nomadienomadie Member UncommonPosts: 172
    Every person called it when those jackasses took over Sony's games. Welcome to the game killing company. No we'll never get a new Everquest. Thanks for being dicks Daybreak. Should we call you GameBreak Studios? I'll go with GameBreak.
  • AnthurAnthur Member UncommonPosts: 961
    goozmania said:
    Let's not forget they already have the assets for the original eq3 that Smedley cancelled because it wasn't "different enough" and Smedley's crap creation eqn, which was cancelled because it sucked.
    Assuming their original version had been in development for 3+ years before being shelved, they could have something pretty substantial already.
    Not sure that original eq3 code is worth anything anymore. How old would it be 5-10 years ? Code doesn't age very well. Especially if the corresponding developers are probably long gone anyway. Easier to start from scratch then.

    And as the original eq3 was too close to eq the chances are higher that Pantheon ever sees day light than another eq game made by day break.
  • GinazGinaz Member RarePosts: 2,572
    lahnmir said:
    Aelious said:
    Burntvet said:
    Reizla said:
    /snip
    I feel for all those who fell for the vaporware and paid $100 to support both Landmark and EQNext.
    I don't.

    Anyone with a brain knew or should have known by looking at the stuff coming out of SOE/DBG that paying actual money for Landmark was foolish and a waste. It was clear that at best, Landmark was a testbed for EQ3, and not designed as an actual stand alone game.

    So the idiots that bought the BS for Landmark/EQ3 and actually paid money, deserve what they got. Being stupid should have consequences.


    This is just incorrect. They stated in the PC Gamer article that LM was intended to be a standalone title. That said I did pay the $100 for Landmark (no one paid anything for EQN/3) and felt I got more than enough enjoyment out of it. I think your gross generalization and disrespect for a whole group of people you couldn't possibly know is pretty immature.
    He's not immature, he's a 'vet.' Although judging from his rude post he's just burned and nothing else.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    He's still upset about Star Wars Galaxies and the nge so anything to do with soe/DBG is bound to trigger him.

    Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?

    Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.

  • GinazGinaz Member RarePosts: 2,572
    edited January 2017
    Kyleran said:
    DMKano said:


    @DmKano - I have very clearly been told by AGS employees that New World is indeed an MMORPG.



    And I have been very clearly told that it's not going to be a traditional MMORPG (like WoW, EQ series etc...) at all.

    So lets wait and see what happens, ok?

    Still a long time away - so the devs can sway it one way or another - we'll see what kind of game it ends up being.
    While we know what Bill does for a living hence giving him access to inside information, I don't think you have ever stated what it is you do that gives you such insights.


    I think we all know the answer to that by now.

    Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?

    Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.

  • lahnmirlahnmir Member LegendaryPosts: 5,054
    edited January 2017
    Ginaz said:
    lahnmir said:
    Aelious said:
    Burntvet said:
    Reizla said:
    /snip
    I feel for all those who fell for the vaporware and paid $100 to support both Landmark and EQNext.
    I don't.

    Anyone with a brain knew or should have known by looking at the stuff coming out of SOE/DBG that paying actual money for Landmark was foolish and a waste. It was clear that at best, Landmark was a testbed for EQ3, and not designed as an actual stand alone game.

    So the idiots that bought the BS for Landmark/EQ3 and actually paid money, deserve what they got. Being stupid should have consequences.


    This is just incorrect. They stated in the PC Gamer article that LM was intended to be a standalone title. That said I did pay the $100 for Landmark (no one paid anything for EQN/3) and felt I got more than enough enjoyment out of it. I think your gross generalization and disrespect for a whole group of people you couldn't possibly know is pretty immature.
    He's not immature, he's a 'vet.' Although judging from his rude post he's just burned and nothing else.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    He's still upset about Star Wars Galaxies and the nge so anything to do with soe/DBG is bound to trigger him.
    Awww, one of those. I didn't know they still existed, it has been centuries ago after all, in a galaxy far, far away..

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'

    Kyleran on yours sincerely 


    'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'

    Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...



    'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless. 

    It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.

    It is just huge resource waste....'

    Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer

  • LokeroLokero Member RarePosts: 1,514
    lahnmir said:
    Awww, one of those. I didn't know they still existed, it has been centuries ago after all, in a galaxy far, far away..

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    You can kill a game, but you can never kill an idea.  There will always be bitter SWG vets who pop out of hyperspace, back into our galaxy.
  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    lahnmir said:
    Ginaz said:
    lahnmir said:
    Aelious said:
    Burntvet said:
    Reizla said:
    /snip
    I feel for all those who fell for the vaporware and paid $100 to support both Landmark and EQNext.
    I don't.

    Anyone with a brain knew or should have known by looking at the stuff coming out of SOE/DBG that paying actual money for Landmark was foolish and a waste. It was clear that at best, Landmark was a testbed for EQ3, and not designed as an actual stand alone game.

    So the idiots that bought the BS for Landmark/EQ3 and actually paid money, deserve what they got. Being stupid should have consequences.


    This is just incorrect. They stated in the PC Gamer article that LM was intended to be a standalone title. That said I did pay the $100 for Landmark (no one paid anything for EQN/3) and felt I got more than enough enjoyment out of it. I think your gross generalization and disrespect for a whole group of people you couldn't possibly know is pretty immature.
    He's not immature, he's a 'vet.' Although judging from his rude post he's just burned and nothing else.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    He's still upset about Star Wars Galaxies and the nge so anything to do with soe/DBG is bound to trigger him.
    Awww, one of those. I didn't know they still existed, it has been centuries ago after all, in a galaxy far, far away..

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    If SWG was SOE's only infarction i doubt SOE would have 'died' and resulted in DBG, lest anyone forget, there is also Vanguard, Matrix Online, and who can forget the nefarious introduction of BFR's to Planetside 1, or the sale of Weapons in Planetside 2 that would be the envy of any real world arms dealer, seeing as they cost real money, of course SWG's NGE was perhaps the most public of SOE's missteps on the road to their own dissolution, but it was hardly the only one, it took serious effort on their own part to get to where DBG currently is.
    SOE's history at this point is largely irrelevant to the online gaming populace, i think its fair to say that the majority either never heard of them, or likely don't care any more, their demise was entirely their own doing, likely the only ones to really care about SOE/DBG's fall from grace are other developers, and likely as a cautionary tale. :o
  • YashaXYashaX Member EpicPosts: 3,100
    edited January 2017
    DMKano said:

    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)


    Minecraft does have mmorpg servers: Wynncraft for example.


    ....
Sign In or Register to comment.