EverQuest's 27th Expansion Includes A $250 Version, Coming December | MMORPG.com

System

EverQuest's 27th Expansion Includes A $250 Version, Coming December | MMORPG.com

Daybreak has announced that the upcoming 27th (!!) expansion for EverQuest, is coming in December - and it's got a $250 version if you're game.

Read the full story here

Utinni

A new raid and some mounts or cyberpunk and $190. Hmm.

xpsync

27 OMG!

27 years old yikes!

But how can that be as wow invented the genre 16 years ago?

Mendel

With a $250 version, a more appropriate release date might be December 7.

Elderknight

guess milking those hardcore fans for $, but still cheaper then some of those ships from star citizen, loved eq back in the day, hopefully will see some new game someday.

Theocritus

xpsync said:

27 OMG!

27 years old yikes!

But how can that be as wow invented the genre 16 years ago?

27 expansions in 21 years...The game launched in 99....I quit playing hardcore in 2005 or so and was starting to get overwhelmed with all of the content even then...i can't even fathom what it is like now.

foppotee

I tried getting back into EQ, several months ago, after a LONG absence & Daybreak saying they couldn't find my old account. I play casually with about 1/2 soloing & 1/2 in a group. I played a couple of months F2P & a couple of months subbed. The npc-companions are simply not good enough at higher levels, both the F2P & the subbed versions, they just cannot endure which makes me speculate why there's so much 3rd-party botting being prevalent. If I could play with my own npc-group the game would be fun again since I'd be able to play at my own pace. However the game isn't worth a $250 investment, imo, but perhaps that price is just for those fortunate enough to afford & want to support EQ after all these years.

Mendel

foppotee said:

I tried getting back into EQ, several months ago, after a LONG absence & Daybreak saying they couldn't find my old account. I play casually with about 1/2 soloing & 1/2 in a group. I played a couple of months F2P & a couple of months subbed. The npc-companions are simply not good enough at higher levels, both the F2P & the subbed versions, they just cannot endure which makes me speculate why there's so much 3rd-party botting being prevalent. If I could play with my own npc-group the game would be fun again since I'd be able to play at my own pace. However the game isn't worth a $250 investment, imo, but perhaps that price is just for those fortunate enough to afford & want to support EQ after all these years.

There are vast differences between the F2P game and the All Access game.  The limitations on F2P include no AutoGrant of AAs, a limit of 1000 AAs, no use of Journeyman mercs, no use of Rk II (or Rk III) spells, no ability to sell or buy in the Bazaar.  At some point, these factors combine to make a very real limit on F2P players.

Coupled with the lack of any real plan for moving from All Access back to F2P status, the player that goes F2P will soon be abandoning the game.  Backing down from the AutoGrant AAs to the 1000 AA limit can be very brutal  (the 1000 limit is a remnant from the GoD/OOW expansions when the level limit was 70).  I know Mendel still sits broken with AAs I earned (not AutoGranted) unable to be spent.  The idea of buying all Rk I spells would hurt, both the financial in-game (plat) loss and the psychological loss of having spent so much time (and plat) to collect mostly Rk II spells from Level 70-90.  I might could get him going again, but it would take about 100,000 plat just to get a functional spell set again.

The game limits seem reasonable, but are stuck with limitations from earlier expansions.  It is pretty clear that SOE/DBG just didn't think about people actually going from All Access back to F2P.  Most people who have dropped All Access have moved on; they aren't in F2P where they *might* spend money on the in-game store or even re-up with All Access.  That is a lost opportunity to sell, essentially customers walking out the door; something no business should really want nor tolerate.

goozmania

OG_Zorvan said:

Theocritus said:

xpsync said:

27 OMG!

27 years old yikes!

But how can that be as wow invented the genre 16 years ago?

...i can't even fathom what it is like now.

A disjointed mess of mostly ignored content.

Considering the number of TLP servers they create every year, none of their content is ever ignored. Every expansion is fully played and enjoyed every year.

Amathe

27 expansions is amazing.

$250 for the top version of the expansion is greedy. Booo DB.

Amathe

I'm just going to remain impressed. 

Nilden

Let me guess 6 new zones? That's what passes as expansions now...

lahnmir

Ohh wow, that 199 bucks version of LotROs War of Three Peaks seems really cheap now doesn’t it? 

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Prepared

xpsync said:

27 OMG!

27 years old yikes!

But how can that be as wow invented the genre 16 years ago?

It's the 27th expansion in 21 years. Not 27 years old.

Po_gg

lahnmir said:

Ohh wow, that 199 bucks version of LotROs War of Three Peaks seems really cheap now doesn’t it? 

Looks like they have to keep raising the bar until day break it

First the $130 expansions in LotRO,

then the re-labeled (normally free) quest pack for $100 (not 199, that must be a typo), sold on the new Daybreak powered store,

and now in EQ the highest $140 tier, which is already +10 dollars compared to LotRO's $130 (must the the inflation or they just follow Sony's general +10 dollars on games), so this $140 pack topped with an additional tier for $250.

Lifetime subscriptions, with the entire game accessible, used to be cheaper than that, FFS...

lahnmir

Po_gg said:

lahnmir said:

Ohh wow, that 199 bucks version of LotROs War of Three Peaks seems really cheap now doesn’t it? 

Looks like they have to keep raising the bar until day break it

First the $130 expansions in LotRO,

then the re-labeled (normally free) quest pack for $100 (not 199, that must be a typo), sold on the new Daybreak powered store,

and now in EQ the highest $140 tier, which is already +10 dollars compared to LotRO's $130 (must the the inflation or they just follow Sony's general +10 dollars on games), so this $140 pack topped with an additional tier for $250.

Lifetime subscriptions, with the entire game accessible, used to be cheaper than that, FFS...

Ahh yes, you are absolutely right, its only 99 instead of 199. That makes it a bloody bargain compared to this one!

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

phoenixfire2

xpsync said:

27 OMG!

27 years old yikes!

But how can that be as wow invented the genre 16 years ago?

IDK WoW does all kinds of magic.  Like for example why is Lich King's horse called invincible even though I can see him?  Makes no sense.

kitarad

I am so happy I was part of this game from the very beginning. It is great to realise that something you absolutely loved lasted this long.

phoenixfire2

remsleep said:

kitarad said:

I am so happy I was part of this game from the very beginning. It is great to realise that something you absolutely loved lasted this long.

For me EQ1 died a long time ago - what the game is today is so far removed from what the game originally was, not sure how one can even see it as the same game anymore. 

It's much different, and community is gone unless you raid, but it's still easy to wax nostalgic.

xpsync

Prepared said:

xpsync said:

27 OMG!

27 years old yikes!

But how can that be as wow invented the genre 16 years ago?

It's the 27th expansion in 21 years. Not 27 years old.

phoenixfire2 said:

xpsync said:

27 OMG!

27 years old yikes!

But how can that be as wow invented the genre 16 years ago?

IDK WoW does all kinds of magic.  Like for example why is Lich King's horse called invincible even though I can see him?  Makes no sense.

lmao, thanks!!! tbh i wasn't thinking, all i wanted was to make that comment, used to drive me insane that so many people thought it all started with wow.

Yeah never know right, could be a time travel thing actually... hmmmm... YEP!!! headache coming on lol

Nilden

phoenixfire2 said:

remsleep said:

kitarad said:

I am so happy I was part of this game from the very beginning. It is great to realise that something you absolutely loved lasted this long.

For me EQ1 died a long time ago - what the game is today is so far removed from what the game originally was, not sure how one can even see it as the same game anymore. 

It's much different, and community is gone unless you raid, but it's still easy to wax nostalgic.

Actually you don't even have to bring nostalgia into it at all. People play on the TLP servers and have just as much fun today doing Kunark/Velious and the old content as they did back when it came out.

In fact the TLP servers are the most popular. 

Theocritus

phoenixfire2 said:

xpsync said:

27 OMG!

27 years old yikes!

But how can that be as wow invented the genre 16 years ago?

IDK WoW does all kinds of magic.  Like for example why is Lich King's horse called invincible even though I can see him?  Makes no sense.

Invincible = cant kill it

Invisible = cant see it

Theocritus

"Lifetime subscriptions, with the entire game accessible, used to be cheaper than that, FFS.."

Did LoTROs original lifetime sub also include all future expansions for free or just not having to ever pay a sub again?

Po_gg

Theocritus said:

"Lifetime subscriptions, with the entire game accessible, used to be cheaper than that, FFS.."

Did LoTROs original lifetime sub also include all future expansions for free or just not having to ever pay a sub again?

Originally (during the subscription era) it only meant no sub ever again, since there were no other paywalls within the game. Expansions weren't included.

After the f2p switch, while technically expansions still aren't included, in practice you can get them for free through your monthly stipend.

phoenixfire2

Theocritus said:

phoenixfire2 said:

xpsync said:

27 OMG!

27 years old yikes!

But how can that be as wow invented the genre 16 years ago?

IDK WoW does all kinds of magic.  Like for example why is Lich King's horse called invincible even though I can see him?  Makes no sense.

Invincible = cant kill it

Invisible = cant see it

Like I said makes no sense, why would they even call him invincible if you can see him?

Mendel

phoenixfire2 said:

Theocritus said:

phoenixfire2 said:

xpsync said:

27 OMG!

27 years old yikes!

But how can that be as wow invented the genre 16 years ago?

IDK WoW does all kinds of magic.  Like for example why is Lich King's horse called invincible even though I can see him?  Makes no sense.

Invincible = cant kill it

Invisible = cant see it

Like I said makes no sense, why would they even call him invincible if you can see him?

Now, toss in intangible, and you'll end up with M.C. Hammer.  Can't Touch This.