Howdy, Stranger!

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

Everquest - Let's be honest...

1235789

Comments

  • KiyorisKiyoris Member RarePosts: 2,130
    There's nothing weird about knowing that btw, SoE used to have the amount of players in their financial data, and you could actually see player numbers as a player when you picked a server, and a third way to measure players was later on with EQPlayers.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    Originally posted by Kiyoris
    Originally posted by BeansnBread
    Originally posted by Kiyoris
    Originally posted by BeansnBread

    lol... oh god damn it. 500k concurrent. You're so funny.

    what's so funny about that

    It's one of the most ridiculous unsubstantiated claims I've heard in a while.

    So you post a subscription chart to show it's concurrent users and not subscriptions...? I'm confuseder. 

    "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

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread Member EpicPosts: 7,254
    Originally posted by Kiyoris
    Originally posted by BeansnBread
    Originally posted by Kiyoris
    Originally posted by BeansnBread

    lol... oh god damn it. 500k concurrent. You're so funny.

    what's so funny about that

    It's one of the most ridiculous unsubstantiated claims I've heard in a while.

    I'm sorry. You don't know the difference between a subscription and a concurrent user. Maybe you were trying to speak about concurrent subscriptions or something. They did have around 450-500k subs at one time at their peak. I think that must be what you mean. For instance, WoW has 10,000,000 subscribers and at their peak they had 12,000,000. EQ had, at their peak, 500k or so.

  • KiyorisKiyoris Member RarePosts: 2,130
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Kiyoris
    Originally posted by BeansnBread
    Originally posted by Kiyoris
    Originally posted by BeansnBread

    lol... oh god damn it. 500k concurrent. You're so funny.

    what's so funny about that

    It's one of the most ridiculous unsubstantiated claims I've heard in a while.

    So you post a subscription chart to show it's concurrent users and not subscriptions...? I'm confuseder. 

    500k refers to the amount of people that were subscribed at a specific moment in 2004

    It does not refer to the total amount of subs created, which is easily 1 million+, because during the anniversary SoE mentioned the number

    The suggestion that only 500k subbed to EQ is false, it's much higher obviously

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    Originally posted by Kiyoris
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Kiyoris
    Originally posted by BeansnBread
    Originally posted by Kiyoris
    Originally posted by BeansnBread

    lol... oh god damn it. 500k concurrent. You're so funny.

    what's so funny about that

    It's one of the most ridiculous unsubstantiated claims I've heard in a while.

    So you post a subscription chart to show it's concurrent users and not subscriptions...? I'm confuseder. 

    500k refers to the amount of people that were subscribed at a specific moment in 2004

    It does not refer to the total amount of subs created, which is easily 1 million+, because during the anniversary SoE mentioned the number

    The suggestion that only 500k subbed to EQ is false, it's much higher obviously

    Oh I see what you're getting at... you're talking about the total number of unique individuals who ever subscribed to EQ... sort of like talking about the WOW 100 million... right? 

    "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

  • KiyorisKiyoris Member RarePosts: 2,130
    Originally posted by BeansnBread

    I'm sorry. You don't know the difference between a subscription and a concurrent user. Maybe you were trying to speak about concurrent subscriptions or something. They did have around 450-500k subs at one time at their peak. I think that must be what you mean. For instance, WoW has 10,000,000 subscribers and at their peak they had 12,000,000. EQ had, at their peak, 500k or so.

    That's right, if you thought I was suggesting, 500k all live in the game, no, I'm talking about concurrent subs at a specific time.

    I'm just replying to a person suggesting EQ only had 500k subs, which is false, the total subs created was much higher.

    So the amount of players who played EQ, is far higher than 500k.

  • KiyorisKiyoris Member RarePosts: 2,130
    Originally posted by Iselin

    Oh I see what you're getting at... you're talking about the total number of unique individuals who ever subscribed to EQ... sort of like talking about the WOW 100 million... right? 

    yes

  • vandal5627vandal5627 Member UncommonPosts: 788
    Originally posted by Kiyoris
    Originally posted by Iselin

    Oh I see what you're getting at... you're talking about the total number of unique individuals who ever subscribed to EQ... sort of like talking about the WOW 100 million... right? 

    yes

    LMAO, looks like someone is buying into company PR jargon to make numbers look better than they are.

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    Originally posted by fivoroth
    Originally posted by Dullahan
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by Kiyoris
    Originally posted by Temp0
    Regardless of what is best for income or "the brand" as you put it, what kind of non-sense is it that a "brand" should abandon its own legacy and fans? Take any of your favorite games and imagine in the next iteration they completely scrapped everything about it and went some different direction with it. That would be utterly crappy (and it happens more often than it should as is without people suggesting it because THEY were not a fan of what came before) for you wouldn't it?

    The initial plan was to make EQNext like EQ.

    Somewhere down the line someone at SoE had the bright idea to throw out tab target, throw out trinity, throw out tanking, throw out class dependency,  and everything that had anything to do with EQ.

    It went south from then on, and here we are, SoE sold off, half their staff fired.

    See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Things like this is exactly what I've been hearing from the EQ community on the Landmark forums, thus my thread. If the only thing that will appeal to this 50k-100k community is an copy of EQ, why should Daybreak even care. 

     

    Don't you think some changes are in order before they end up with a 7 year $200mill+ product that only appeals to 50k people? Wouldn't that be bad for the franchise. Hell wouldn't it be bad for the industry and mmorpg community as a whole?

    EQ fans represents millions of people.  Thats like saying a football team only has 30k fans because thats all that showed up to a game.

    Who are you kidding? EQ was not that successful. And it peaked  around 300-500k subs. . There are tons of p2p MMOs which had a lot more subscribers.

    500k subs at one time...

    You don't really suppose only those 500k players that the game topped out with are the ones who've been playing these last 15 years.

    Millions.


  • KiyorisKiyoris Member RarePosts: 2,130
    Originally posted by vandal5627
    Originally posted by Kiyoris
    Originally posted by Iselin

    Oh I see what you're getting at... you're talking about the total number of unique individuals who ever subscribed to EQ... sort of like talking about the WOW 100 million... right? 

    yes

    LMAO, looks like someone is buying into company PR jargon to make numbers look better than they are.

    Not really, because the game is 15 years old, taking the subs at a specific point in time and suggesting only 500k subbed is really unfair.

    The older a game is, the more this difference is important.

    Many ppl here who liked EQ, did not play during the peak in 2004 for example, many quit pre-GoD. I didn't, but I know many did. And many people discovered EQ post-GoD.

    To discount those ppl isn't fair.

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    Originally posted by bob_sandwich
    Originally posted by jircris
    Originally posted by bcbully

    Of course Blizzard stole from Everquest... the lead designers played EQ hardcore (like me). Rob Pardo's little wood elf princess "Ariel" kill stole my scarab back 15 years ago on the nameless server in the zone of butcher block mountains.   It's truly sad nerd and geeks can't be hardcore anymore because of the greed of their masters demand it.  The masses demand candy crush saga and I want an escape from this reality. I want to feel like I'm in the game. I want a game with a rule set similar to this .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_Survival_Guide with an oculus rift.

    The only thing blizzard spawned was games like League of Legends ( and yes the decline of humanity is profitable) ... the only thing I've learned from subhumans shouldn't be on a PC period, or a facebook account or an internet connection altogether, pushing their bad ideas to game developers and harassing the public . EQ was a beautiful game, god bless you brad.

    I'm with ya, buddy.  EQ was the first "survival game."


  • LoviotorLoviotor Member UncommonPosts: 16

    What many people seem to forget is that in 1999, when EverQuest was launched, MMOs were still very new.  achieving over 300,000 subscriptions in the first two years after release was actually huge for the time period, considering that Ultima Online was the only other real MMO at the time until close to end of 2001, when Dark Age of Camelot came out.  Fast forward to 2004 (November) when both World of Warcraft and EverQuest II came out, and you see EverQuest with a subscriber base of 550,000 at the time, and a dramatic decrease with a fairly steady decline, since then.  EverQuest II peaked at about 340,000 subscriptions.  No MMO before or since has had the success that Blizzard has had with World of Warcraft, combining their franchise with prime-time advertising and a model that is "easymode" that a 5 year old can be sat in front of the game and figure out, you have a mass-market appeal that is second to none.  Blizzard did an excellent job in their creation, marketing and advancement of their MMO giant.

    Not to say that World of Warcraft was/is perfect, far from it.  It doesn't make everyone that tries it happy, doesn't provide the challenge that others want.  What it does do is provide an easy to play system that appeals to a broader range than many other games.

    Sony has never done much in the line of advertising via mainstream media (television, radio, movies, etc) for their MMO titles, which is actually sad, to me.  I feel, on a personal level, that EverQuest II is a much more polished (and was at release) than World of Warcraft, but that's my opinion.  WoW is much too cartoony for me, I prefer my games with a bit more to the graphics and not as vibrant as WoW tends to be.

    Even Landmark is too bright and cheery for me, with the exception of the tunnels and some of the magnificent creations that I've had the pleasure of exploring from those in the community with much more talent and time than I possess.

     

    In reality, MMOs are a very personal choice.  People choose which games they want to play for different reasons, and while I don't dislike games like WoW, they're not my first preference.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,601
    No eq peaked at just under 500 k subs. Not concurrent users. Closer to 450k.
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,601
    Hmm concurrent subs i will give you if that's what you meant then yes.

    Thought you meant on at the same time.
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,601
    Heard a report one time that something like 10 million people had tried eq over the years. With a sub peak of 450k. That's probably about right.
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,601
    That doesn't mean it had millions of fans though. Only that millions tried.

    By the Same logic wow would have about 80 - 100 million fans. Which of course it doesn't.
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • patient32patient32 Member UncommonPosts: 96

    I just feel that, since the world has ever been lacking in True Innovative Genius (the label is thrown around at less-deserving folk) - (surely "not much better than we've ever had" doesn't constitute genius?) - that every product of "man" has, pretty much "one relatively ideal form" that we're headed towards.

     

    For (current) Human Economics, that is Capitalism.

    For  MMO (with today's technology).... It was the World of Warcraft Format.

     

    I really don't see a new game, containing innovative genius, being possible with Today's Technology.

    Just as I don't see Capitalism ever NOT being the way of Human Nature, until what it is to be Human is changed.

    Post-Human Augmentation and Enhancement, in re-defining humanity, will surely give rise to a new Society.....

     

    And so, I would say we're also waiting on the "technology of tomorrow" to "raise the bar" for what is possible in MMO.

     

    It's just like.... With today's technology, since we lack truly innovative and capable genius developers, MMO has reached the end of it's line.

    We've reached Today's "Relative Ideal".

     

    And it won't be surpassed, until either......

    - A true innovative and capable genius developer emerges, able to bring everything, that we already have now, together wonderfully.....

    or

    - The TRULY Next Gen technology opens up a whole new "higher tier" of what is possible with MMO.

     

    (NEXT GENERATION does not mean, a slight upgrade on what came before - as lesser developers seem hell-bent on convincing us of!)

     

    "It's like a finger pointing away to the moon... Don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss all the heavenly glory" (Bruce Lee)

    (Insert your favourite mmo here): ......And behold, a pale horse.... And a million hellishly bad mmos followed with it.

  • fivorothfivoroth Member UncommonPosts: 3,916
    Originally posted by Kiyoris
    Originally posted by BeansnBread

    I'm sorry. You don't know the difference between a subscription and a concurrent user. Maybe you were trying to speak about concurrent subscriptions or something. They did have around 450-500k subs at one time at their peak. I think that must be what you mean. For instance, WoW has 10,000,000 subscribers and at their peak they had 12,000,000. EQ had, at their peak, 500k or so.

    That's right, if you thought I was suggesting, 500k all live in the game, no, I'm talking about concurrent subs at a specific time.

    I'm just replying to a person suggesting EQ only had 500k subs, which is false, the total subs created was much higher.

    So the amount of players who played EQ, is far higher than 500k.

    YOu are just misusing the word concurrent. Concurrent 500k means, 500k logged online at the same time. Saying concurrent subs? No one would phrase it like that because it's confusing. Also when ANY company announces sub numbers they are for a secific point of time. When WoW said they had 12m subs during their peak, it meant it's 12 months at that point of time. So not sure what your point is. EQ only had 500k subs. THere were games like SWTOR which had 2/3 times that. Hell SWTOR have a much higher number on a consistent basis. Saying concurrent just confuses people because that's not how you use the word.

    The only thing special about EQ at the time was that it ws the only game, so there was no competition. As soon as the competition ramped up, EQ was dropped quickly and it now has an insignificnt market share. Hell, EQ after 10 years was all but forgotten. WoW on the other hand 10 years later, 10m subs.

    Your last statement is true. But still doesn't mean much. WoW at some point announced 100m accounts. Hell, even if EQ ever got to 2m accounts, it would still trail most of the other AAA MMOs in terms of players.

    Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    500k concurrent subscribers is perfectly proper.  500k concurrent players online is just something different.


  • kitaradkitarad Member LegendaryPosts: 8,178
    Concurrent players is number of players playing at the same time. The number of concurrent players will always be less than the number of subscriptions. Concurrent means at the same time. No game will ever have the same number of players playing at the same time as the number of its subscribers because people log on at different times and sometimes do not play for days .

  • ThorqemadaThorqemada Member UncommonPosts: 1,282

    Right, there is a reason Blizzard has only 1 MMOrpg.

    SoE did nothing but to split theirs between 2 games and possibly 3 in the now not happening future.

    "Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"

    MWO Music Video - What does the Mech say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF6HYNqCDLI
    Johnny Cash - The Man Comes Around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0x2iwK0BKM

  • RydesonRydeson Member UncommonPosts: 3,852
    Originally posted by Thorqemada

    Right, there is a reason Blizzard has only 1 MMOrpg.

    SoE did nothing but to split theirs between 2 games and possibly 3 in the now not happening future.

    Agreed.. I think SOE trying to sustain an EQ 1, 2 and 3 on the game list is just silly..  Personally I think EQ2 was a failed successor to EQ1, and was forced to keep both games running at the same time because of it.. For the last 10 years SOE and EQ franchise has been crippled due to poor leadership in my opinion..

    I would be shocked to see Daybreak keep ALL the games as status quo over the next year or two.. I think change is coming, we just don't know how much and in what direction.. 

  • SiugSiug Member UncommonPosts: 1,257
    Originally posted by Iselin
     Your crowd just looks at how it isn't like EQ1. You're dinosaurs and dead weight.

    Oy, easy cowboy. I would never play EQ1 again because time has moved on. Then again I would never play that Disney garbage that SOE is peddling to us. Parkouring shadowknight/paladins/rangers/necromancers and whatnot with 40 classes and twitch based combat. With every reveal I lost some of my interest until it dropped to zero. I still hope to play a new Everquest game though that honors it's legacy.

  • EronakisEronakis Member UncommonPosts: 2,249

    Everquest holds a high standing to Everquest players because the MMO at it's core it's a mmoRPG. Here are some things of why Everquest fans are loyal and value these particular elements...

     

    - Challenge

    - Immersed World

    - Variety (Races & Classes & Zones)

    - No linear gameplay per say

    - Community 

    - Group Content

    - Tab Targeting

    - Character Progression

     

    I would say that these are probably the general things of why Everquest players hold that game dear and are very loyal to that brand of game. Unfortunately, there hasn't been many titles today to provide what the Everquest  crowd really wants. If there is a mmo with Everquest philosophy (the above list) with new innovative gameplay mechanics, I am sure that a majority of Everquest players will flock towards a game like that. Even if it doesn't have the Everquest title. 

  • fivorothfivoroth Member UncommonPosts: 3,916
    Originally posted by Eronakis

    Everquest holds a high standing to Everquest players because the MMO at it's core it's a mmoRPG. Here are some things of why Everquest fans are loyal and value these particular elements...

     

    - Challenge - debatable

    - Immersed World - not sure how you define this as this is very subjective, it's up to the individual. I was super immersed when I played WoW for the first time, a lot more than in EQ.

    - Variety (Races & Classes & Zones) - like a lot of other mmos.

    - No linear gameplay per say - it was a themepark. You grind mobs > move camp 1 > camp 2 etc. You had your path set by your levels. You go to areas which are close to your level. The only difference was that there were not quests and you just grinding in one spot.

    - Community - a lot of other games have this - e.g. LOTRO. I am personally not a fan of the EQ "community" due to how elitist is/exclusive.

    - Group Content - a lot of MMOs have that....

    - Tab Targeting - every MMO seem to have this except for certain action focused ones.

    - Character Progression - shocker!

     

    I would say that these are probably the general things of why Everquest players hold that game dear and are very loyal to that brand of game. Unfortunately, there hasn't been many titles today to provide what the Everquest  crowd really wants. If there is a mmo with Everquest philosophy (the above list) with new innovative gameplay mechanics, I am sure that a majority of Everquest players will flock towards a game like that. Even if it doesn't have the Everquest title. 

    Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.

Sign In or Register to comment.