Mine probably ties in with yours, OP. It's SOE, there hasn't been a single game they've had that they didn't ruin yet. Maybe Planetside 2, but that's new, you have to give them time. SOE is one of the slowest companies after all lol.
I wouldn't be suprised if they didn't charge you real money for repairs or to be rezzed or to learn skills or to buy the highest gear.
I completely disagree that SOE does a bad job with their cash shops. The amount of content you get for zero dollars is quite high, and if you feel you should be able to play more than what they offer for free without throwing them a small monthly sub, or spending $20 or $30 in the cash shop, then I don't know what to say.
When I started playing EQ again, all I did was pay for a sub and bought the expansion for about $30, which included a ton of previous expansion I didn't even have.
And that's all the money I spent on the game and it gave me access to just about everything I wanted. The one or two extra things I wanted ended up being bought with the +SC you get from just having a monthly subscription.
I haven't played EQ2 in many years, but from what people tell me on what you get for free and how much the cash shop costs for a reasonable player is more than fair from what I have heard, much cheaper than other F2P games anyway.
Vanguard has a much healthier population now than when back when I stopped playing (when it was P2P). The game has a lot more content, much more polished and offers most of it without a single dime. They saved VG, and the F2P model there is extremely respectable.
PS2 is by far their best/cheapest system because you can earn every weapon, suit upgrade and vehicle enhancement without paying a cent. I think the only things you can't "earn" are little cosmetic items (I could be wrong though). The cert bonus from the subscription and the SC monthly credits it gives is also well worth the $15.
Frankly, I've played lots of games, P2P that went F2P, and straight F2P games, and so far the most reasonable ones I've seen have been from SOE. I don't think people have any room to complain on this matter. All the people I've seen complain about SOE's F2P model seem to suggest that they expect the games to be played to the fullest without ever spending a dime. It's not realistic at all.
Anti-cash shop players aren't for saving money. They don't want it free. We gladly pay subscriptions fee's instead. It's a better gaming experience.
Anti-cash shop players aren't for saving money. They don't want it free. We gladly pay subscriptions fee's instead. It's a better gaming experience.
Yup, that's what makes SOE's models so great. You can F2P it. Or you can pay a sub. There isn't an SOE game out that you can play to the fullest with the sub alone. (well, the expansion packs too for some games, of course, but those are generally $29.99, which makes it on-par / cheaper than P2P + sub games)
So everyone should be happy with SOE's model. F2P for the cheapos, subscription for those who want to pay the sub, and cash shop for rich folk to buy lots of junk and donate to the developers for a game they enjoy.
Everyone wins. The F2P model SOE has come up with works great, brings in more profits for the company, brings in more players to keep the communities thriving and offers very respectable pay methods for those who do want to pay.
Definitely the cash shop and SOE's current Pay to Win policy with their 'newer' games. Its most apparent in Planetside 2, the cash shop there enables you to buy a huge advantage over other players, or at least those that don't also buy things. Take Submachine guns, when they were first released to the cash shop they had a massive impact on the game, afaik they still do, not to mention vehicular weapon unlocks, or dual anti air etc for Max. Buying things gave you an instant advantage over those who didnt, regardless of level. Technically you can grind points to unlock them, but it takes a significant amount of time, and would mean you spent those points on weapons instead of increasing your defences etc, which means that those who do buy them with cash, can concentrate their points on just increasing their advantages even further. Planetside 2 is pay to win without a shadow of a doubt, and my greatest fear is that SOE will work the cash shop in EQN in the exact same way, the fact that EQN is going to be F2P just reinforces that fear tbh, as SOE have a terrible reputation now when it comes to cash shops. And its how the cash shop in EQN is implemented that will ultimately determine whether the game is a success, or yet another epic fail, sadly something SOE has gotten rather good at lately.
Im not worried at all, I play games for fun and when they stop being fun I leave, plain and simple.
I can understand people's concerns though, cashstore or not no matter what they sell, it doesnt effect me, when it stops being fun I leave, noone forces me to stay.
Open world PVP that we have no way to turn of, Reticule aiming, No pre defined classes, No holy trinity, No way to buy a sub and the game just being way too easy. But because it is EQ i can put up with a lot and i am looking forward to the game even though i have a lot of worries about the game.
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play." Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
i find EQ2's SC shop completely harmless. I would absolutely HATE having to buy chest keys from SC shop like in Neverwinter and games that have that setup. EQ2 just has appearance items and you can get plenty of good appearance items in-game. Plus you can easily buy SC with in-game earned plat.
I have a couple of main worries:
1. It will be almost entirely a solo game - the latest EQ2 expacs have all been going in this direction, they don't even make group shared dungeons or group quests anymore, all solo except for the group & raid instances. The group content is still good, but i don't want ALL quests i nthe game to be solo.
2. it will have Global Cooldown combat. This is probably as close to a game-breaker as it gets for me. I can get behind all kinds of different combat systems, but GCD just kills any fluidity of combat for me and makes combat not fun.
3. It won't have Ratonga. It may be shallow, but i would really miss my favourite EQ race if it ends up not included
I am totally with you on the GCD I hate it I know why it's used but I still don't like it makes play feel artificial. On the ratonga if you go to roundtable it's one of the questions should they be in so maybe some unlock on release like the froglok were.
Originally posted by ice-vortex The game having instancing or phasing is probably my second biggest worry.
They stated several times that it is persistant.
It means nothing when developers state their world is seemless and persistent. Most mmos try to downplay instances. I remember reading some WoW dev claim that WoW can't be considerd a heavily instanced game because the majority of the world is open and persistent. Technically he's right, but we all know that anything worth doing in WoW takes place inside of an instance.
You can't listen to what the devs say about this, you have to see the reality of how exactly they implement it.
I'm sort of worried that EverQuest Next is more of a marketing ploy than an actual game. An experiment in branding, PR, and a new monetizing strategy.
Of course, they call it "open development." Apparently, this is where the "players" become part-time game design contractors, and the game designers themselves become quasi-customer service clerks, whose task it is merely to curate the player-made content. That's my understanding anyway.
So there is no game. They've spent all this time creating the tools for world building. When it comes to the actual "game," all they showed us were tech demos. There were no significant examples of UI or game mechanics (except the auto-parkour system), just tech demos. I even wonder if there really is a fully implemented combat system yet.
Overall I'm cautiously hopeful, because they have some interesting ideas.
Comments
Anti-cash shop players aren't for saving money. They don't want it free. We gladly pay subscriptions fee's instead. It's a better gaming experience.
Yup, that's what makes SOE's models so great. You can F2P it. Or you can pay a sub. There isn't an SOE game out that you can play to the fullest with the sub alone. (well, the expansion packs too for some games, of course, but those are generally $29.99, which makes it on-par / cheaper than P2P + sub games)
So everyone should be happy with SOE's model. F2P for the cheapos, subscription for those who want to pay the sub, and cash shop for rich folk to buy lots of junk and donate to the developers for a game they enjoy.
Everyone wins. The F2P model SOE has come up with works great, brings in more profits for the company, brings in more players to keep the communities thriving and offers very respectable pay methods for those who do want to pay.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Nothing?
I do not throw my hopes and dreams at developers and cry when they don't come true.
I love mmo's period. I'm a gamer. I will play just about everything out there at least once. If I don't like it, I will move on. Simple as that.
- 1 day to level cap
- too instanced pvp/pve
- no open world bosses
- no open world pvp/guild wars/pk system(with gear drop it pk dies)
- no need for guild and cooperatiion
Im not worried at all, I play games for fun and when they stop being fun I leave, plain and simple.
I can understand people's concerns though, cashstore or not no matter what they sell, it doesnt effect me, when it stops being fun I leave, noone forces me to stay.
My #1 worry?
I am biased (SWG), so I would say Smedley.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
Ironic because I was just about to post that I don't want boring auto-attack combat.
That and a cash shop
Heh, always been a /roar addict myself.
Open world PVP that we have no way to turn of, Reticule aiming, No pre defined classes, No holy trinity, No way to buy a sub and the game just being way too easy. But because it is EQ i can put up with a lot and i am looking forward to the game even though i have a lot of worries about the game.
"There are at least two kinds of games.
One could be called finite, the other infinite.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
http://s36.photobucket.com/user/mhoward48/media/OnwYv97.jpg.html
They stated several times that it is persistant.
My biggest concern at this point is the combat we saw demoed. Looked shallow and gw2ish.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
I am totally with you on the GCD I hate it I know why it's used but I still don't like it makes play feel artificial. On the ratonga if you go to roundtable it's one of the questions should they be in so maybe some unlock on release like the froglok were.
My one worry is that it wont even come close to their lofty promises.
Which competes directly with the worry that everything they promised will be in the game but be horribly programmed or implemented.
It means nothing when developers state their world is seemless and persistent. Most mmos try to downplay instances. I remember reading some WoW dev claim that WoW can't be considerd a heavily instanced game because the majority of the world is open and persistent. Technically he's right, but we all know that anything worth doing in WoW takes place inside of an instance.
You can't listen to what the devs say about this, you have to see the reality of how exactly they implement it.
I'm sort of worried that EverQuest Next is more of a marketing ploy than an actual game. An experiment in branding, PR, and a new monetizing strategy.
Of course, they call it "open development." Apparently, this is where the "players" become part-time game design contractors, and the game designers themselves become quasi-customer service clerks, whose task it is merely to curate the player-made content. That's my understanding anyway.
So there is no game. They've spent all this time creating the tools for world building. When it comes to the actual "game," all they showed us were tech demos. There were no significant examples of UI or game mechanics (except the auto-parkour system), just tech demos. I even wonder if there really is a fully implemented combat system yet.
Overall I'm cautiously hopeful, because they have some interesting ideas.