5 Ways EQ2 Killed EQ1
James Hicks
could have been spent expanding and repairing EQ1, were spent building EQ2
from scratch. Whether you believe EQ1 is ultimately fixable or not, there is
no question it could have benefited in the very least from more developers
devoted to bughunting and testing.
2. Whether you believe the revenue used came from EQ1 or not, funds that
could have been spent marketing EQ1 and obtaining more badly needed newbies
were spent selling EQ2 as a new product.
3. From the very moment it was announced, potential newbies were turning
away from EQ1, concerned they would jump on a dying bandwagon. We had
several posts in here of people asking "hey I was gonna start playing EQ,
but I heard EQ2 is coming - should I wait for 2?"
4. The drain of EQ1's actual players into the beta and now into EQ2 live.
EQ1 was already suffering a lower than normal population from the recent
Gates/Bugs disaster, but it had won a lot of that credibility back with
Omens. Now it undeservedly loses yet more playerbase to the newcomer.
5. The ultimate death of Everquest 1: Exactly how many new players do we
think will want to play EQ1 with a product called EQ2 on the market? I'm
going to take a wild stab in the dark, and guess roughly 0%.
How do I feel about that, I don't hear you ask?
I think EQ1 actually funded EQ2's development and marketing. I think that
while I was paying for one product, Sony was taking my money and making the
next product - which I then have to buy all over again if I want to continue
playing. Without getting too dramatic about it, they basically plundered my
favorite game of all its resources - money, old players, new players,
marketing, and devlopment - to make the new product. I'm not a happy camper.
So what should they have done, I don't hear you ask?
Well, obviously I would have prefered there be no EQ2 whatsoever, and all
those developers and all that marketeers devoted to making EQ1 a more
balanced game and bringing more newbies onboard. The same damn graphics
engine should have been (and probably will be) brought over to EQ1,
modernising the visuals for a second time. I started EQ1 in september 2002,
and had tons of fun from day one - all the game needed from the newbie's
perspective was MORE PLAYERS. It wasn't until about level 30 that mudflation
began to hurt, and not until the 50's [pop] when class balance became a
problem.
However, if they weren't going to do that, they should have either announced
the truth about EQ2 from the outset - that it is a replacement, not a
parallel game at all - and offered EQ1 players incentives to come across.
The way they're doing it now is probably going to make them more money
though, and more fool us.
Regards,
Kuloth
Ben Sisson
name "James Hicks" <nos...@forme.plz>:
>4. The drain of EQ1's actual players into the beta and now into EQ2 live.
>EQ1 was already suffering a lower than normal population from the recent
>Gates/Bugs disaster, but it had won a lot of that credibility back with
>Omens. Now it undeservedly loses yet more playerbase to the newcomer.
I don't understand "undeservedly". EQ2 is a newer game and deserves
those players as much as EQ1 does.
>However, if they weren't going to do that, they should have either announced
>the truth about EQ2 from the outset - that it is a replacement, not a
>parallel game at all - and offered EQ1 players incentives to come across.
>The way they're doing it now is probably going to make them more money
>though, and more fool us.
Mmorpgs have finite life spans. There will come a time when no
resources are devoted to EQ2 either. Or WoW. I am impressed that EQ
stayed as popular as it did for as long as it did. I don't think
anyone believed it would hold on in the face of so many competing
later mmorpgs. But it did. But it can't last forever, nor was it
intended to.
I'm curious what brought this on, though, since EQLive isn't actually
dead yet. You are seeing a much reduced player population right now
then?
--
"Why stop now, just when I'm hating it?" - Marvin
"It's certainly not a "memory leak." - 'shadows', my latest stalker
"No one said it wasn't a memory leak." - 'shadows' a few posts later
Lizard
wrotC:DRIVE_E
>I think EQ1 actually funded EQ2's development and marketing. I think that
>while I was paying for one product, Sony was taking my money and making the
>next product
Congratulations.
You've discovered "Capitalism".
The profits from a successful venture are reinvested in a new
ventures, in order to make MORE profits.
Failure to do this in a competitive market results in no profits, loss
of jobs, and the ultimate end of the original venture. If you don't
the MMORPG market is competitive, well, I'm glad you can get internet
on your planet.
EQ1 is aging. Sony has a choice - either continue to support it alone
while slowly bleeding customers to newer games, or to keep it alive as
a cash generating engine and funnel the funds into a game which could
compete in the modern marketplace. EITHER WAY, EQ1 would eventually
end - but one way, Sony continues to make money. The other way, they
don't.
Hmm. Make money or not make money? Hmm, hmm, hmm. This is a stickler
of a conundrum!
I'm gonna go with "make money". YMMV.
And if you think capitalism is teh suxxorz, well, have fun with all
those great MMORPGs coming out of North Korea, Cuba, and...uhm...is
there anyone else left? (Don't say China, they're running dogs now,
too.)
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com
Lokari
>I think EQ1 actually funded EQ2's development and marketing. I think that
>while I was paying for one product, Sony was taking my money and making the
>next product - which I then have to buy all over again if I want to continue
>playing. Without getting too dramatic about it, they basically plundered my
>favorite game of all its resources - money, old players, new players,
>marketing, and devlopment - to make the new product. I'm not a happy camper.
Welcome to the world of business reality. Did you ever buy, well, just
about anything? Odds are the development costs were paid for by
profits from earlier products.
>So what should they have done, I don't hear you ask?
They did what they should have done - bring out new products to
attempt to maximize market share and profit.
--
Exodus 22:18 can kiss my pagan ass
www.lokari.net
Vladesch
news:2JAld.35540$K7.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I dont thik its just eq2. Many people simply want out because of the mess
they made with eq1, and wont be touching eq2.
I for one dont intend to go near eq2 because of sony's track record.
Wouldnt surprise me if eq2 is a big flop in 6 months.
Tim Smith
wrote:
> 1. Whether you believe the revenue used came from EQ1 or not, funds that
> could have been spent expanding and repairing EQ1, were spent building EQ2
> from scratch. Whether you believe EQ1 is ultimately fixable or not, there
> is no question it could have benefited in the very least from more
> developers devoted to bughunting and testing.
Companies of Sony's size tend to keep these things pretty separate, so there
probably was little budget or developer availability impact on EQ1 from EQ2.
...
> 4. The drain of EQ1's actual players into the beta and now into EQ2 live.
> EQ1 was already suffering a lower than normal population from the recent
> Gates/Bugs disaster, but it had won a lot of that credibility back with
> Omens. Now it undeservedly loses yet more playerbase to the newcomer.
I'll get back to this one.
> 5. The ultimate death of Everquest 1: Exactly how many new players do we
> think will want to play EQ1 with a product called EQ2 on the market? I'm
> going to take a wild stab in the dark, and guess roughly 0%.
This is probably the biggie (although undoubtedly there will be some people
who assume EQ2 is an expansion to EQ1 and that, therefore, they have to buy
EQ1 first).
Now, back to #4. I think you are overlooking something: World of Warcraft.
A certain number of people are ready to leave EQ1 for a sufficiently good
new game. Without EQ2 out there, most of them would probably end up in Wow.
With EQ2, some of those people that would have gone to WoW will end up in
EQ2.
WoW is perhaps the biggest threat to EQ1 in a long time. SWG was a
different enough genre (Science fiction rather than fantasy) that, even if
it had been flawless it would have limited impact. DAoC is fantasy, but the
emphasis on PvP rather than raiding limited the impact (and it was early
enough that it was still at the stage where new MMORPGs mostly brought in
new people rather than draw from exisisting games). CoH is like SWG:
different genre.
--
--Tim Smith
Mark Rafn
[snip account of resources and players going to EQ2 rather than EQ1]
>I think EQ1 actually funded EQ2's development and marketing.
>I think that while I was paying for one product, Sony was taking my
>money and making the next product - which I then have to buy all over again
>if I want to continue playing.
Ok, fine. Darn Sony! They do the same evil thing with electronics - they
used the profits from my Walkman to make CD Walkman, which I had to buy all
over again. And they used THAT money to fund crappy memory stick music
players that I didn't even want!
Oh, and blast Pixar! They took all my money from Shrek, and instead of
improving that, they spent it on Shrek 2! To heck with my local diner!
I bought breakfast, but instead of making that last all day, they started
working on lunch, which I had to buy all over again!
>So what should they have done, I don't hear you ask?
What I wish you'd ask is "What should _I_ have done"? It's not been a secret
that Sony has been working on EQ2, and that it would be another competitor for
EQ1. What do you feel you should have done differently? What will you do
differently in your next game (or in EQ1, if you're staying) to prevent your
fine payments from being misused by the company to make new products?
As a player, I feel I've gotten more value from EQ than any other game I've
owned. I've also spent far more money on it, but even so, it's been
well worth it. It has always been clear that it wouldn't last forever, and
even if it did last a long time, it would stop being the absolute premium
MMORPG at some point. That point was about when DAoC came out, IMO. EQ was
then "mature" enough that true MMORPG newbies would have a hard time choosing
it as their first, unless they had friends/family urging them to do so.
Others may argue that it happened last week, or that it will happen next week.
It will happen to ALL games. Eventually new games will take over the
mindshare of the gaming community, such as it is. Old games can still be
fun, but it's ludicrous to expect any leader to stay that way forever.
I just find it hard to be angry about it. I'm still having fun in EQ1, so
I find it hard to think that EQ2 is all that important to my EQ1 experience.
I played the EQ2 beta, and have friends playing, so I'm glad to hear about
it, but EQ1 has some fun left for me.
--
Mark Rafn da...@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
Shane
wrote:
>EQ1 is aging. Sony has a choice - either continue to support it alone
>while slowly bleeding customers to newer games, or to keep it alive as
>a cash generating engine and funnel the funds into a game which could
>compete in the modern marketplace. EITHER WAY, EQ1 would eventually
>end - but one way, Sony continues to make money. The other way, they
>don't.
Well we see how that business model of sticking to UO instead of a UO2
has made it the monster MMOG game it is today,... wait a sec! :-P
dontemailme
"Ben Sisson" <ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:lgqdp0p3rhurp1gqh...@4ax.com...
> A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
> name "James Hicks" <nos...@forme.plz>:
>
>
>
> >However, if they weren't going to do that, they should have either
announced
> >the truth about EQ2 from the outset - that it is a replacement, not a
> >parallel game at all - and offered EQ1 players incentives to come across.
> >The way they're doing it now is probably going to make them more money
> >though, and more fool us.
>
> Mmorpgs have finite life spans. There will come a time when no
> resources are devoted to EQ2 either. Or WoW. I am impressed that EQ
> stayed as popular as it did for as long as it did. I don't think
> anyone believed it would hold on in the face of so many competing
> later mmorpgs. But it did. But it can't last forever, nor was it
> intended to.
>
> I'm curious what brought this on, though, since EQLive isn't actually
> dead yet. You are seeing a much reduced player population right now
> then?
All they have to do to extend the lifespan of the game is to allow for free
full equip character server transfers, and slowly close down the servers.
Without new expansions they could keep it going for years that way, and I'm
not sure new expansions would really be that expensive; after all, they
could re-use eq2 ideas etc.
It's only the character transfer tax they imposed that isolates people. I
can see it had it's place, but it's time to get rid of it from eq1.
--
Brett Caton
Lizard
wrotC:DRIVE_E
Is UO growing, or is it just holding on to the same, slowly dwindling,
customer base? It's still a cash cow for Origin, but it's not going
anywhere. Anyone have reliable subscriber numbers?
UO is a slightly different beast, in that it faces less competition
than EQ...there are very few "sandbox" games. SWG is the only other
major one I can think of. (And the player base didn't want a sandbox,
they wanted EQ in space, so the game has been spinning for a year
trying to redefine itself) There's that Egypt game (I don't mean to
diss it, my brain is still waking up and I can't remember the name)
but that's not mass-market, to my knowledge.
James Hicks
news:saqdp018423ivddg9...@4ax.com...
> >I think EQ1 actually funded EQ2's development and marketing. I think that
> >while I was paying for one product, Sony was taking my money and making
the
> >next product
>
> Congratulations.
>
> You've discovered "Capitalism".
Condescension aside here...
I don't agree. EQ1 was (and for the moment still is) perhaps the most
successful business model in the history of computer gaming, not least
because it has the ability to be an ongoing project. A few hundred thousand
fans were willing to keep buying expansions and keep paying a monthly fee to
play. I think you're relying on an antiquated capitalist principle where it
doesn't apply - and that Sony have made the same mistake.
MMORPGs have as much in common with other regular-pay services such as
net access and pay TV, as they do with conventional computer games. Regular
services with recurring payments depend on a quality of ongoing service, and
a continual influx of new subscribers resulting from a continuous marketing
effort - very different to a conventional computer game, with little or no
ongoing service or marketing once development and release has been
completed. MMORPGs have massive potential product life cycles owed to the
churning nature of their customer base and the evolutionary core (pure
software) of their product. Five years is a fraction of this potential -
quite close to a traditional computer-game development cycle really.
They are now proceeding to destroy one income stream in the hopes of
establishing another, presumably bigger one. If it works it will only be
because they have thrown immense resources at it. If they had put forward
the same development and marketing resources into their existing product,
they could have made similar gains - and suffered none of the losses that
are now inevitable, as EQ1 players who have just watched their game's
death-warrant signed walk away.
Everquest has changed a great deal in its five year history, in all of
the areas where so-called more modern games might compete. It is about due
for some new character models and some new content concepts, but these would
have cost less to add than the complete from-scratch rebuild that EQ2
encompasses.
EQ1 languished in a complete lack of marketing for too long. The game's
lifeblood - new players - few and far between, with no apparent spending on
Sony's part to bring more in, despite the EQ1 team's contraversial
improvements to the newbie-appeal factor.
> The profits from a successful venture are reinvested in a new
> ventures, in order to make MORE profits.
That model works for cars, movies, blenders and toasters. Is it really
appropriate for MMORPGs?
Why are people leaving EQ1? Most of the complaints I hear are bugs, slow
development, poor CS, and a lack of new players resulting an in inevitably
shrinking playerbase. The people who are leaving are nevertheless reluctant
to do so - they are leaving characters and friendships behind, things that
you don't lose when you replace your old toaster. EQ isn't getting old, it's
evolving, and the complaints are that its doing so too slowly, without
sufficient quality control or marketing. These point to a lack of
reinvestment, not the product's age, as the problem.
> Failure to do this in a competitive market results in no profits, loss
> of jobs, and the ultimate end of the original venture. If you don't
> the MMORPG market is competitive, well, I'm glad you can get internet
> on your planet.
I'm very glad my planet as internet access too.
> EQ1 is aging. Sony has a choice - either continue to support it alone
> while slowly bleeding customers to newer games, or to keep it alive as
> a cash generating engine and funnel the funds into a game which could
> compete in the modern marketplace. EITHER WAY, EQ1 would eventually
> end - but one way, Sony continues to make money. The other way, they
> don't.
>
> Hmm. Make money or not make money? Hmm, hmm, hmm. This is a stickler
> of a conundrum!
>
> I'm gonna go with "make money". YMMV.
>
> And if you think capitalism is teh suxxorz, well, have fun with all
> those great MMORPGs coming out of North Korea, Cuba, and...uhm...is
> there anyone else left? (Don't say China, they're running dogs now,
> too.)
I do think capitalism has critical flaws and will one day be replaced
with something close to the theoretical socialist democracy.
But not before the average joe voter becomes a better selector than is
the law of the jungle.
James Hicks
news:93ij62-...@hydra.dagon.net...
> James Hicks <nos...@forme.plz> wrote:
> [snip account of resources and players going to EQ2 rather than EQ1]
>
> >I think EQ1 actually funded EQ2's development and marketing.
> >I think that while I was paying for one product, Sony was taking my
> >money and making the next product - which I then have to buy all over
again
> >if I want to continue playing.
>
> Ok, fine. Darn Sony! They do the same evil thing with electronics - they
> used the profits from my Walkman to make CD Walkman, which I had to buy
all
> over again. And they used THAT money to fund crappy memory stick music
> players that I didn't even want!
>
> Oh, and blast Pixar! They took all my money from Shrek, and instead of
> improving that, they spent it on Shrek 2! To heck with my local diner!
> I bought breakfast, but instead of making that last all day, they started
> working on lunch, which I had to buy all over again!
One thing I may not miss about EQ will be the apparent inability of many
of this newsgroup's members to form a logical argument without resorting to
flaming and ridicule.
As put in a previous post, that approach is perfectly appropriate for
products that are bought once and consumed, but MMORPGs have as much in
common with other regular-pay services as they do with conventional computer
games. They are a new kind of product, incorporating some elements of
product and some of service, and their potential lifespan is open to debate.
Another viewpoint (are these allowed?) is that part of playing a MMORPG
is making an investment in your character, or characters. What Sony has done
has devalued these, like a bank that loses your savings.
> >So what should they have done, I don't hear you ask?
>
> What I wish you'd ask is "What should _I_ have done"? It's not been a
secret
> that Sony has been working on EQ2, and that it would be another competitor
for
> EQ1. What do you feel you should have done differently? What will you do
> differently in your next game (or in EQ1, if you're staying) to prevent
your
> fine payments from being misused by the company to make new products?
What do you feel I should have done? Or was this paragraph sarcasm so
pure that it actually has no meaning?
> As a player, I feel I've gotten more value from EQ than any other game
I've
> owned. I've also spent far more money on it, but even so, it's been
> well worth it. It has always been clear that it wouldn't last forever,
and
> even if it did last a long time, it would stop being the absolute premium
> MMORPG at some point. That point was about when DAoC came out, IMO. EQ
was
> then "mature" enough that true MMORPG newbies would have a hard time
choosing
> it as their first, unless they had friends/family urging them to do so.
> Others may argue that it happened last week, or that it will happen next
week.
There's an awfully big difference between no longer the leader, and
dead, of course.
> It will happen to ALL games. Eventually new games will take over the
> mindshare of the gaming community, such as it is. Old games can still be
> fun, but it's ludicrous to expect any leader to stay that way forever.
But MMORPGs are not conventional computer games. They undergo continual
development. How many advances did newer games bring that EQ didn't
eventually incorporate? You're slapping static product philosophy over a new
kind of dynamic product/service.
James Hicks
news:NPDld.15868$Gm6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> In article <2JAld.35540$K7.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, James Hicks
> wrote:
> > 1. Whether you believe the revenue used came from EQ1 or not, funds that
> > could have been spent expanding and repairing EQ1, were spent building
EQ2
> > from scratch. Whether you believe EQ1 is ultimately fixable or not,
there
> > is no question it could have benefited in the very least from more
> > developers devoted to bughunting and testing.
>
> Companies of Sony's size tend to keep these things pretty separate, so
there
> probably was little budget or developer availability impact on EQ1 from
EQ2.
As big as it is, it's still the same company, and it has the same finite
resources. Money spent on EQ2 could have been spent on EQ, and wasn't.
> > 5. The ultimate death of Everquest 1: Exactly how many new players do we
> > think will want to play EQ1 with a product called EQ2 on the market? I'm
> > going to take a wild stab in the dark, and guess roughly 0%.
>
> This is probably the biggie (although undoubtedly there will be some
people
> who assume EQ2 is an expansion to EQ1 and that, therefore, they have to
buy
> EQ1 first).
>
> Now, back to #4. I think you are overlooking something: World of
Warcraft.
> A certain number of people are ready to leave EQ1 for a sufficiently good
> new game. Without EQ2 out there, most of them would probably end up in
Wow.
> With EQ2, some of those people that would have gone to WoW will end up in
> EQ2.
Sure, but why are they ready to leave EQ? Many of them are just simply
over it - this happens.
A lot, however, are sick of poor CS, poor quality of development (bugs,
no playtesting), and slow development (serious balance issues not addressed
for 12+ months). These people are going to leave EQ for a different game,
and are unlikely to return to yet another Sony game.
> WoW is perhaps the biggest threat to EQ1 in a long time. SWG was a
> different enough genre (Science fiction rather than fantasy) that, even if
> it had been flawless it would have limited impact. DAoC is fantasy, but
the
> emphasis on PvP rather than raiding limited the impact (and it was early
> enough that it was still at the stage where new MMORPGs mostly brought in
> new people rather than draw from exisisting games). CoH is like SWG:
> different genre.
Really, this is the crux of the issue. EQ2 is really a continuation of
the same product, and that could have been done without alienating their
entire existing customer base of that product.
> --
> --Tim Smith
Lizard
wrotC:DRIVE_E
> But MMORPGs are not conventional computer games. They undergo continual
>development. How many advances did newer games bring that EQ didn't
>eventually incorporate? You're slapping static product philosophy over a new
>kind of dynamic product/service.
And YOU are ignoring the fact that the core engine of the game can
only be expanded so far. To use your TV analogy, it would be as if one
staton continued to broadcast only in black and white, so as not to
alienate their existing customers.
You are also focusing too heavily on said existing customers. A game
cannot survive without new blood. You note a character represents and
investment. True enough. But for a new player, with no investment,
which he will choose? A game based on an engine which began
development circa 1996, and which is an agglomeration of patches (and
where the culture is heavily weighted towards "uber" players, with
most of the content only becoming accessible at high levels), or a new
game, competitive with the others, without such a dominant culture?
Old players always quit, sooner or later. If the rate of new players
coming in doesn't equal or exceed the old players going out, the game
slowly dies. It may remain barely profitable...but investors don't
care about "barely", and Sony is one of the largest -- and thus, most
investor-conscious -- companies on the planet.
EQ1, like UO, will be a long, long, time dying...so don't worry about
it. I am sure it will still be running 5 years from now, as the costs
of simply keeping the servers up will be low, and the cash will keep
trickling in, enough to justify it for both financial and PR reasons.
Wouldn't do to pull the plug on the companies flagship product so long
as it's operating even a little bit in the black.
Or, of course, you can wait until the Glorious People's Socialist
Revolution happens. Please be sure to email me when it occurs, since I
understand it won't be televised. (This then begs the question of who
really "needs" an MMORPG, and a society where resources are allocated
according to "need" would most likely have no such entertainments. If
you have free time to play games, you are clearly not working up to
your ability, leech on the proletariat! To the re-education camps with
you, Comrade!)
hughes
> announced
> the truth about EQ2 from the outset - that it is a replacement, not a
> parallel game at all - and offered EQ1 players incentives to come across.
> The way they're doing it now is probably going to make them more money
> though, and more fool us.
Whatever makes you think it is going to make them more money?
I stopped paying for eq1 and am going to pay for wow. Sony lost all of my
dollars and since the wow open beta got capped at 500,000 people methinks
sony is losing far more than just me. The biggest problem wow has right now
, and it is a huge problem is overcrowding lagg.
Eq2 is going to be just as big a flop as star wars was.
Eq1 has been dying for a long time now. Even with full time raid gear I
could not solo solid blue mobs. The mob mudflation was ridiculously out of
line leaving only raid game. Truth be told many of us raided alot but did
not actually enjoy it all that much. The first time or two on each mob was
fun but xegony 14 is just a pain in the arse.
hughes
> with something close to the theoretical socialist democracy.
Heh i think that is exactly ass backwards. I think we keep trying for the
perfect theoretical socialist democracy but will eventually realize that
capitalism (freedom) is the only system that will ever work.
Capitalism is a very simple concept that most people fail to understand. It
basically boils down to any 2 willing people can trade resources , goods ,
or services without inteference from other parties. Every other system seeks
to restrict your ability to do so. Oh they cry rivers about why it is
necessary to restrict your access to freedom, great wailing and gnashing of
teeth goes on daily, but I have some faith that eventually all those poor
socialists will realize that the only people they are hurting are
themselves.
hughes
> attempt to maximize market share and profit.
My problem is that they did so so badly. The games bear little resemblence
to each other which is a good thing since eq made some VERY poor basic
choices. EQ2 though isnt that much better they just made DIFFRENT very poor
choices :) They also needed a much better transitioning mechanism.
Ben Sisson
name "James Hicks" <nos...@forme.plz>:
> I don't agree. EQ1 was (and for the moment still is) perhaps the most
>successful business model in the history of computer gaming, not least
>because it has the ability to be an ongoing project. A few hundred thousand
>fans were willing to keep buying expansions and keep paying a monthly fee to
>play. I think you're relying on an antiquated capitalist principle where it
>doesn't apply - and that Sony have made the same mistake.
You're not looking ahead. Regardless of whether EQ2 was released, WoW
was going to take a big chunk of the playerbase, Vanguard will take
yet more, and other more minor mmorpgs will nickel and dime EQ1 away.
If SOE didn't move forward it would have had the mmorpg equivalent of
the dinosaur. You can't keep convincing newbies to come into the game
when there are demonstrably better and far newer games coming out no
matter what gimmicks were used. There *is* a limit to how far you can
take mudflation and still have the players able to get their heads
around it.
I can't count how many people were only playing EQ until something
better came along and most of them knew better *was*.
So I don't blame SOE for their moves at all.
RedFox
"James Hicks" <nos...@forme.plz> wrote
> 3. From the very moment it was announced, potential newbies were turning
> away from EQ1, concerned they would jump on a dying bandwagon. We had
> several posts in here of people asking "hey I was gonna start playing EQ,
> but I heard EQ2 is coming - should I wait for 2?"
> 5. The ultimate death of Everquest 1: Exactly how many new players do we
> think will want to play EQ1 with a product called EQ2 on the market? I'm
> going to take a wild stab in the dark, and guess roughly 0%.
Aren't these two basically the same?
42
> Oh, and blast Pixar! They took all my money from Shrek, and instead of
> improving that, they spent it on Shrek 2!
What exactly would you have had them do to shrek 1, that would have
somehow avoided you having to buy it over again?? Magically broadcast
special features onto your DVD?
42
hugh...@earthlink.net says...
Lol. Your being awfully naive.
When the capitalist has enough money and there aren't any laws to stop
him from exploiting it, then labour isn't 'willingly trading resources'
anymore, and the whole premise of capitalism falls on its ass.
You think the conditions in a sweatshop represent the willing trade of
resources?
Rastus
as entertainment and for the social aspect of it. I am finding EQ2 to be a
far superior experience to EQ1.
I also think it is quite funny that the people who play the game in a ultra
competetive pissing contest fashion are having problems leaving their uber
EQ1 characters behind and "getting dirty with the unwashed masses" again.
"But, but, there are now level 65 druid guildies to powerlevel me, and I
don't have a level 70 character to farm twink items either - how the heck am
I meant to play now?"
- The King is dead. Long live the king.
James Hicks
news:2vq8b4F...@uni-berlin.de...
I guess - I suppose I wanted to underline the fact that EQ2's been
turning noobs away from EQ1 for many months now, and now that its out the
ratio will be something like 100%
James Hicks
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:46:37 GMT, "James Hicks" <nos...@forme.plz>
> wrotC:DRIVE_E
>
> > But MMORPGs are not conventional computer games. They undergo
continual
> >development. How many advances did newer games bring that EQ didn't
> >eventually incorporate? You're slapping static product philosophy over a
new
> >kind of dynamic product/service.
>
> And YOU are ignoring the fact that the core engine of the game can
> only be expanded so far. To use your TV analogy, it would be as if one
> staton continued to broadcast only in black and white, so as not to
> alienate their existing customers.
What exactly is this limit? What says a company can only expand content
so far?
Even the basic roles of characters can change - and Sony has been in the
process of discussing such basic changes with its playerbase. Their lack of
progress has more to do with lack of resources than any limitation. We are
talking about software, not some steel-stamped product. The only barriers to
change are the customers' expectation, and we have a situation where many
customers expect change.
> You are also focusing too heavily on said existing customers. A game
> cannot survive without new blood. You note a character represents and
> investment. True enough. But for a new player, with no investment,
> which he will choose? A game based on an engine which began
> development circa 1996, and which is an agglomeration of patches (and
> where the culture is heavily weighted towards "uber" players, with
> most of the content only becoming accessible at high levels), or a new
> game, competitive with the others, without such a dominant culture?
Which is why Sony's worst mistake was failing to market the game to new
players.
That is also the reason we have the culture of the dominant uber
player - there are too many of them and not enough noobs, meaning either
that old players take a huge long time to leave EQ (true) and/or that not
enough new ones are arriving.
> Or, of course, you can wait until the Glorious People's Socialist
> Revolution happens. Please be sure to email me when it occurs, since I
> understand it won't be televised. (This then begs the question of who
> really "needs" an MMORPG, and a society where resources are allocated
> according to "need" would most likely have no such entertainments. If
> you have free time to play games, you are clearly not working up to
> your ability, leech on the proletariat! To the re-education camps with
> you, Comrade!)
You look like a bloody idiot yanking on about a communist revolution
after someone mentions socialist democracy.
And I'm not going to be drawn into a debate on the subject. Haven't been
that stupid in eight years.
BombayMix
I never played an mmorpg before and wanted to try one with my new PC.
There was never any chance I would sign up to EQ1 with all the other
new mmorpg being released.
First I thought FFXI or COH but getting into an established one seemed
hard. I have experience on a console ORPG where after a few weeks of
release new people found it very hard to find groups as everyone had
moved on.
So, if Sony hadn't made EQ2 I probably would of gone to WoW.
RJB
> "Lizard" <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote in message
> news:saqdp018423ivddg9...@4ax.com...
>>>I think EQ1 actually funded EQ2's development and marketing. I think that
>>>while I was paying for one product, Sony was taking my money and making
> the
>>>next product
>>
>> Congratulations.
>>
>> You've discovered "Capitalism".
>
> Condescension aside here...
>
> I don't agree. EQ1 was (and for the moment still is) perhaps the most
> successful business model in the history of computer gaming, not least
> because it has the ability to be an ongoing project. A few hundred thousand
> fans were willing to keep buying expansions and keep paying a monthly fee to
> play. I think you're relying on an antiquated capitalist principle where it
> doesn't apply - and that Sony have made the same mistake.
A few hundred thousand fans with little or no alternatives; until now that
is. And just *why* would you say this is an *antiquated* principle? Seems
pretty much up to date to me.
>
> MMORPGs have as much in common with other regular-pay services such as
> net access and pay TV, as they do with conventional computer games. Regular
> services with recurring payments depend on a quality of ongoing service, and
> a continual influx of new subscribers resulting from a continuous marketing
> effort - very different to a conventional computer game, with little or no
> ongoing service or marketing once development and release has been
> completed. MMORPGs have massive potential product life cycles owed to the
> churning nature of their customer base and the evolutionary core (pure
> software) of their product. Five years is a fraction of this potential -
> quite close to a traditional computer-game development cycle really.
This would be true if they had, perhaps, taken EQL and melded it with EQ2's
new features. But that would have had problems in and of itself. How many
hardcore "raiders" would keep their accounts with EQ2's raid *smallness*?
Not too many I would think.
> They are now proceeding to destroy one income stream in the hopes of
> establishing another, presumably bigger one. If it works it will only be
> because they have thrown immense resources at it. If they had put forward
> the same development and marketing resources into their existing product,
> they could have made similar gains - and suffered none of the losses that
> are now inevitable, as EQ1 players who have just watched their game's
> death-warrant signed walk away.
How are they destroying it? Just because *you* are a bit peeved about it
doesn't mean the majority of EQL players are ready to quit over this.
Matter of fact I've seen many people from EQL state emphatically that they
*won't* play EQ2 and are staying with EQL for as long as the servers are
up. Will this change? Possibly but it can't be said that it's all SOE's
fault. Blizzard, NC Soft and the others might have a thing or two to say
about it before it's all done.
> Why are people leaving EQ1? Most of the complaints I hear are bugs, slow
> development, poor CS, and a lack of new players resulting an in inevitably
> shrinking playerbase. The people who are leaving are nevertheless reluctant
> to do so - they are leaving characters and friendships behind, things that
> you don't lose when you replace your old toaster. EQ isn't getting old, it's
> evolving, and the complaints are that its doing so too slowly, without
> sufficient quality control or marketing. These point to a lack of
> reinvestment, not the product's age, as the problem.
Some of those complaints are arising in EQ2 already. So?
> I do think capitalism has critical flaws and will one day be replaced
> with something close to the theoretical socialist democracy.
>
> But not before the average joe voter becomes a better selector than is
> the law of the jungle.
Aha! But by complaining that EQ2 shouldn't have been introduced and all
money and time investments should have been made into EQL kind of
contradicts this statement. Face it, capitalism is about *choices*, not
simply about making money.
--
RJB
11/15/2004 9:42:52 AM
"Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never
try."
- Homer Simpson
RJB
And this is bad how? If they'd done what you want then EQL would be totally
supplanted by EQ2. How does that draw in new business? Those that don't
like EQL's methods now probably won't like an extension of EQL. It's about
choice. They're catering to two different tastes now instead of one
(barring Planetside, SWG, et al.).
--
RJB
11/15/2004 9:52:21 AM
"Success is that old ABC -- ability, breaks, and courage."
-Charles Luckman
Gelgar
"James Hicks" <nos...@forme.plz> wrote in message
>
> MMORPGs have as much in common with other regular-pay services such as
> net access and pay TV, as they do with conventional computer games.
> Regular
> services with recurring payments depend on a quality of ongoing service,
> and
> a continual influx of new subscribers resulting from a continuous
> marketing
> effort - very different to a conventional computer game, with little or no
> ongoing service or marketing once development and release has been
> completed. MMORPGs have massive potential product life cycles owed to the
> churning nature of their customer base and the evolutionary core (pure
> software) of their product. Five years is a fraction of this potential -
> quite close to a traditional computer-game development cycle really.
>
> They are now proceeding to destroy one income stream in the hopes of
> establishing another, presumably bigger one. If it works it will only be
> because they have thrown immense resources at it. If they had put forward
> the same development and marketing resources into their existing product,
> they could have made similar gains - and suffered none of the losses that
> are now inevitable, as EQ1 players who have just watched their game's
> death-warrant signed walk away.
>
Dos - Windows - Windows 3.1- Windows 95 - Windows 98 - Windows 98se -Windows
ME
Windows NT - Windows2000 - Windows XP
Your right this software business practice has never been tried or done.
Sony has no way to tell if
introducing new versions of software while barely maintaining the older
releases will make money.
pocket 4's
Play EQ 2 for a few days and you'll never go back and you'll never
worry about these issues again unless your computer can't support
gameplay. I have to say that the specs are reasonable. I'm running it
on a 3 year old business pc with a 1.6 ghx P4 a direct x 9 video card
and 512mb of RAM. In fact it runs better on this pc than EQ1. Go
figure.
James Grahame
"James Hicks" <nos...@forme.plz> wrote in message
>
> 1. Whether you believe the revenue used came from EQ1 or not, funds that
> could have been spent expanding and repairing EQ1, were spent building EQ2
> from scratch. Whether you believe EQ1 is ultimately fixable or not, there
> is
> no question it could have benefited in the very least from more developers
> devoted to bughunting and testing.
Heh, most of the new systems introduced in EQ2 were tested in some form
in EQ1. EQ1 has benefitted tremendously in that respect from EQ2.
> 2. Whether you believe the revenue used came from EQ1 or not, funds that
> could have been spent marketing EQ1 and obtaining more badly needed
> newbies
> were spent selling EQ2 as a new product.
They market EQ? Have yet to see an EQ ad of any flavour, although
admittedly I don't read the gaming mags.
> 5. The ultimate death of Everquest 1: Exactly how many new players do we
> think will want to play EQ1 with a product called EQ2 on the market? I'm
> going to take a wild stab in the dark, and guess roughly 0%.
I think word of mouth will still attract people to EQ1, but it's going
to be lower and lower. I saw a prediction that EQ1 has one more expansion
left in it. More and more, I'm starting to believe that's true.
> Well, obviously I would have prefered there be no EQ2 whatsoever, and all
> those developers and all that marketeers devoted to making EQ1 a more
> balanced game and bringing more newbies onboard. The same damn graphics
> engine should have been (and probably will be) brought over to EQ1,
> modernising the visuals for a second time. I started EQ1 in september
> 2002,
> and had tons of fun from day one - all the game needed from the newbie's
> perspective was MORE PLAYERS. It wasn't until about level 30 that
> mudflation
> began to hurt, and not until the 50's [pop] when class balance became a
> problem.
I don't think the devs wanted this. They wanted to "do EQ right", and
the players in EQ1 would have screamed at the changes that are in EQ2. The
game has too much inertia.
> However, if they weren't going to do that, they should have either
> announced
> the truth about EQ2 from the outset - that it is a replacement, not a
> parallel game at all - and offered EQ1 players incentives to come across.
> The way they're doing it now is probably going to make them more money
> though, and more fool us.
I don't view EQ2 as a replacement. It will be if it has half the
timesinks as EQ1, though - players will be forced to pick one to spend time
on if they wish to progress. When EQ2 players start to hit that point,
that's when we'll see the first wave of players come back to EQ1.
James
Graeme Faelban
news:df7md.100027$VA5.88557@clgrps13:
>
> "James Hicks" <nos...@forme.plz> wrote in message
> news:2JAld.35540$K7.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> 1. Whether you believe the revenue used came from EQ1 or not, funds
>> that could have been spent expanding and repairing EQ1, were spent
>> building EQ2 from scratch. Whether you believe EQ1 is ultimately
>> fixable or not, there is no question it could have benefited in the
>> very least from more developers devoted to bughunting and testing.
>
> Heh, most of the new systems introduced in EQ2 were tested in some
> form
> in EQ1. EQ1 has benefitted tremendously in that respect from EQ2.
I had been noticing a lot of features that were tested in EQ, and are now
in EQ2.
>
>> 2. Whether you believe the revenue used came from EQ1 or not, funds
>> that could have been spent marketing EQ1 and obtaining more badly
>> needed newbies were spent selling EQ2 as a new product.
>
> They market EQ? Have yet to see an EQ ad of any flavour, although
> admittedly I don't read the gaming mags.
Yeah, they do, even had some TV ads as I recall some time back (a couple
years or so).
>
>> 5. The ultimate death of Everquest 1: Exactly how many new players do
>> we think will want to play EQ1 with a product called EQ2 on the
>> market? I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark, and guess roughly
>> 0%.
>
> I think word of mouth will still attract people to EQ1, but it's
> going
> to be lower and lower. I saw a prediction that EQ1 has one more
> expansion left in it. More and more, I'm starting to believe that's
> true.
Would not shock me, time will tell.
--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 68 seasons
Tainniel Fleabane, Halfling Warrior of 32 seasons
Giluven, Wood Elf Druid of 29 seasons
Graeniel, High Elf Enchanter of 25 seasons
Bruce Miller
My joining EQ2 was for the exact same reasons you did. I just made a
brand new shiny gaming PC and also happened to be in the market for a
new timesink the same week EQ2 came out.
I'm pretty happy with my EQ2 experience thusfar (only have a few minor
gripes regarding tradeskills). One of my favorite things about this
game is I can play it windowed. I'll sick my pet on a mob and then
switch over to the web browser, chat client, or whatever during the
fight. No more alt-tabbing out of a fullscreen game for me. :)
--
http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/pplayer.vm?characterId=111762111
Seeq Endestroi
>Dos - Windows - Windows 3.1- Windows 95 - Windows 98 - Windows 98se -Windows ME
>Windows NT - Windows2000 - Windows XP
You forgot Win95 OSR2, a major upgrade to Win95 released well prior to Win98 . You could
not functionally patch Win95 to OSR2. OSR2 was a major upgrade, akin to XP>XPSP2.
Best regards,
Tim ==
(substitute 'tcsys.com' for 'nospam.co.uk')
_________________
Seeq Endestroi
Paladin of Mithanial Marr, The Rathe
http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=507035
Visit the Surrender Dorothy web ! (http://dorothyrocks.com)
Visit the Crunch Monkey web ! (http://crunchmonkey.com)
James Hicks
news:Hu2dnZjqrKU...@rogers.com...
> "James Hicks" <nos...@forme.plz> wrote in message
> news:qRJld.36259$K7.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > establishing another, presumably bigger one. If it works it will only be
> > because they have thrown immense resources at it. If they had put
forward
> > the same development and marketing resources into their existing
product,
> > they could have made similar gains - and suffered none of the losses
that
> > are now inevitable, as EQ1 players who have just watched their game's
> > death-warrant signed walk away.
> >
>
> Dos - Windows - Windows 3.1- Windows 95 - Windows 98 - Windows
98se -Windows
> ME
> Windows NT - Windows2000 - Windows XP
>
> Your right this software business practice has never been tried or done.
> Sony has no way to tell if
> introducing new versions of software while barely maintaining the older
> releases will make money.
At the risk of repeating myself, you don't pay a monthly fee for
Windows. It's not a combined service/product, and you don't buy expansion
packs for it. You're comparing apples to oranges.
James Hicks
news:1iavu1fk...@robartle.nospam.hotmail.com...
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:21:10 GMT, James Hicks wrote:
> > "Lizard" <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote in message
> > news:saqdp018423ivddg9...@4ax.com...
> >>>I think EQ1 actually funded EQ2's development and marketing. I think
that
> >>>while I was paying for one product, Sony was taking my money and making
> > the
> >>>next product
> >>
> >> Congratulations.
> >>
> >> You've discovered "Capitalism".
> >
> > Condescension aside here...
> >
> > I don't agree. EQ1 was (and for the moment still is) perhaps the
most
> > successful business model in the history of computer gaming, not least
> > because it has the ability to be an ongoing project. A few hundred
thousand
> > fans were willing to keep buying expansions and keep paying a monthly
fee to
> > play. I think you're relying on an antiquated capitalist principle where
it
> > doesn't apply - and that Sony have made the same mistake.
> A few hundred thousand fans with little or no alternatives; until now that
> is. And just *why* would you say this is an *antiquated* principle? Seems
> pretty much up to date to me.
They had dozens of alternatives. I say it's an antiquated principle
because it's worked for a hundred years on conventional products, that are
very different to EQ and other product-services.
> > MMORPGs have as much in common with other regular-pay services such
as
> > net access and pay TV, as they do with conventional computer games.
Regular
> > services with recurring payments depend on a quality of ongoing service,
and
> > a continual influx of new subscribers resulting from a continuous
marketing
> > effort - very different to a conventional computer game, with little or
no
> > ongoing service or marketing once development and release has been
> > completed. MMORPGs have massive potential product life cycles owed to
the
> > churning nature of their customer base and the evolutionary core (pure
> > software) of their product. Five years is a fraction of this potential -
> > quite close to a traditional computer-game development cycle really.
> This would be true if they had, perhaps, taken EQL and melded it with
EQ2's
> new features. But that would have had problems in and of itself. How many
> hardcore "raiders" would keep their accounts with EQ2's raid *smallness*?
> Not too many I would think.
Obviously things like that would never have been introduced.
> > They are now proceeding to destroy one income stream in the hopes of
> > establishing another, presumably bigger one. If it works it will only be
> > because they have thrown immense resources at it. If they had put
forward
> > the same development and marketing resources into their existing
product,
> > they could have made similar gains - and suffered none of the losses
that
> > are now inevitable, as EQ1 players who have just watched their game's
> > death-warrant signed walk away.
> How are they destroying it? Just because *you* are a bit peeved about it
> doesn't mean the majority of EQL players are ready to quit over this.
> Matter of fact I've seen many people from EQL state emphatically that they
> *won't* play EQ2 and are staying with EQL for as long as the servers are
> up. Will this change? Possibly but it can't be said that it's all SOE's
> fault. Blizzard, NC Soft and the others might have a thing or two to say
> about it before it's all done.
I've given you five points on how they have been 'destroying' it, and
how they are destroying it now. Did you read my original post? These points
also explained why EQ1 is ultimately doomed by EQ2's introduction. If you
want me to substantiate any of these, why don't you quote one and ask?
> > Why are people leaving EQ1? Most of the complaints I hear are bugs,
slow
> > development, poor CS, and a lack of new players resulting an in
inevitably
> > shrinking playerbase. The people who are leaving are nevertheless
reluctant
> > to do so - they are leaving characters and friendships behind, things
that
> > you don't lose when you replace your old toaster. EQ isn't getting old,
it's
> > evolving, and the complaints are that its doing so too slowly, without
> > sufficient quality control or marketing. These point to a lack of
> > reinvestment, not the product's age, as the problem.
> Some of those complaints are arising in EQ2 already. So?
I don't see how that invalidates anything I've said.
> > I do think capitalism has critical flaws and will one day be
replaced
> > with something close to the theoretical socialist democracy.
> >
> > But not before the average joe voter becomes a better selector than
is
> > the law of the jungle.
> Aha! But by complaining that EQ2 shouldn't have been introduced and all
> money and time investments should have been made into EQL kind of
> contradicts this statement. Face it, capitalism is about *choices*, not
> simply about making money.
At the risk of repeating myself, I'm not going to argue capitalism VS
socialism. Also, I really don't see how that statement is relevant to this
discussion. I don't believe I was proposing a socialist solution to the
EQ1/2 problem.
Regards,
James
hughes
>
> When the capitalist has enough money and there aren't any laws to stop
> him from exploiting it, then labour isn't 'willingly trading resources'
> anymore, and the whole premise of capitalism falls on its ass.
>
> You think the conditions in a sweatshop represent the willing trade of
> resources?
Yes i most certainly do. That may be the piece of the puzzle many of you
fine socialists miss. Lets see work in sweatshop on chair 8 hrs for 5 bucks
a day. Or go collect dung in fields at 50 cents for the day. This is the
choice many 3rd world people have. You tell them they can not work at the
sweatshop because it harms your sensibility and the poor people sit down and
cry rivers. There is a bloody reason a mcdonalds opens in russia, india, or
even iraq and they have 12000 applicants who desperately want that dollar an
hour job. Comfy americans just can not comprehend how most of the world
lives and historically how all humans have lived. We clawed our way out with
capitalism and now are biting the hand that fed us.
Any 2 parties should be allowed to enter into willing trade. Goverments only
purpose is to insure that no unwilling trade goes on. You cannot use force
or fraud to limit anyone elses life, liberty, or property and thats the only
rule we need.
RJB
If you like muds maybe. Other than that I have enough fingers left over
without going to toes. And do you remember the old saying? If it ain't
broke don't fix it.
>
>>> MMORPGs have as much in common with other regular-pay services such
> as
>>> net access and pay TV, as they do with conventional computer games.
> Regular
>>> services with recurring payments depend on a quality of ongoing service,
> and
>>> a continual influx of new subscribers resulting from a continuous
> marketing
>>> effort - very different to a conventional computer game, with little or
> no
>>> ongoing service or marketing once development and release has been
>>> completed. MMORPGs have massive potential product life cycles owed to
> the
>>> churning nature of their customer base and the evolutionary core (pure
>>> software) of their product. Five years is a fraction of this potential -
>>> quite close to a traditional computer-game development cycle really.
>> This would be true if they had, perhaps, taken EQL and melded it with
> EQ2's
>> new features. But that would have had problems in and of itself. How many
>> hardcore "raiders" would keep their accounts with EQ2's raid *smallness*?
>> Not too many I would think.
>
> Obviously things like that would never have been introduced.
How can you say obviously? Unless you're the designer you *don't* know. How
many players stay in EQ1 now just for raiding? Or just because friends do?
>
>>> They are now proceeding to destroy one income stream in the hopes of
>>> establishing another, presumably bigger one. If it works it will only be
>>> because they have thrown immense resources at it. If they had put
> forward
>>> the same development and marketing resources into their existing
> product,
>>> they could have made similar gains - and suffered none of the losses
> that
>>> are now inevitable, as EQ1 players who have just watched their game's
>>> death-warrant signed walk away.
>> How are they destroying it? Just because *you* are a bit peeved about it
>> doesn't mean the majority of EQL players are ready to quit over this.
>> Matter of fact I've seen many people from EQL state emphatically that they
>> *won't* play EQ2 and are staying with EQL for as long as the servers are
>> up. Will this change? Possibly but it can't be said that it's all SOE's
>> fault. Blizzard, NC Soft and the others might have a thing or two to say
>> about it before it's all done.
>
> I've given you five points on how they have been 'destroying' it, and
> how they are destroying it now. Did you read my original post? These points
> also explained why EQ1 is ultimately doomed by EQ2's introduction. If you
> want me to substantiate any of these, why don't you quote one and ask?
Five points that don't necessarily add up to 'destroying'. Yes I read it
and no, I don't agree. That's why I posted. I don't specifically agree that
EQ2 has killed EQ1. What was the original design decisions. For all you
know, Verant (then Sony) had an original five year lifespan. Maybe they're
keeping it alive for the simple fact that it *is* doing as well as it has
done.
Neither was I. I was just pointing to some flaws in your opinions.
--
RJB
11/16/2004 8:18:48 AM
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different
results."
-Albert Einstein
Simond
"Ben Sisson" <ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:lgqdp0p3rhurp1gqh...@4ax.com...
> A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
> name "James Hicks" <nos...@forme.plz>:
>
> >EQ1 was already suffering a lower than normal population from the recent
> >Gates/Bugs disaster, but it had won a lot of that credibility back with
> >Omens. Now it undeservedly loses yet more playerbase to the newcomer.
>
> I don't understand "undeservedly". EQ2 is a newer game and deserves
> those players as much as EQ1 does.
>
>
> >However, if they weren't going to do that, they should have either
announced
> >the truth about EQ2 from the outset - that it is a replacement, not a
> >parallel game at all - and offered EQ1 players incentives to come across.
> >The way they're doing it now is probably going to make them more money
> >though, and more fool us.
>
> resources are devoted to EQ2 either. Or WoW. I am impressed that EQ
> stayed as popular as it did for as long as it did. I don't think
> anyone believed it would hold on in the face of so many competing
> later mmorpgs. But it did. But it can't last forever, nor was it
> intended to.
UO is still running.
Meridian 59 is still running.
Heck, even The Realm is still running, iirc.
--
Simond
"I ask for so little. Just fear me, love me, do as I say and I will be your
slave." - Jareth the Goblin King, Labyrinth
Crash86
>
> "Ben Sisson" <ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:lgqdp0p3rhurp1gqh...@4ax.com...
> > A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
> > name "James Hicks" <nos...@forme.plz>:
<snip>
> > >However, if they weren't going to do that, they should have either
> announced
> > >the truth about EQ2 from the outset - that it is a replacement, not a
> > >parallel game at all - and offered EQ1 players incentives to come
across.
> > >The way they're doing it now is probably going to make them more money
> > >though, and more fool us.
> >
> > Mmorpgs have finite life spans. There will come a time when no
> > resources are devoted to EQ2 either. Or WoW. I am impressed that EQ
> > stayed as popular as it did for as long as it did. I don't think
> > anyone believed it would hold on in the face of so many competing
> > later mmorpgs. But it did. But it can't last forever, nor was it
> > intended to.
>
> UO is still running.
In fact, UO just released an expansion IIRC. Samurai Empire, or something
like that.
Crash
James Hicks
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:21:00 GMT, James Hicks wrote:
> >>> doesn't apply - and that Sony have made the same mistake.
> >> A few hundred thousand fans with little or no alternatives; until now
that
> >> is. And just *why* would you say this is an *antiquated* principle?
Seems
> >> pretty much up to date to me.
> >
> > They had dozens of alternatives. I say it's an antiquated principle
> > because it's worked for a hundred years on conventional products, that
are
> > very different to EQ and other product-services.
>
> If you like muds maybe. Other than that I have enough fingers left over
> without going to toes. And do you remember the old saying? If it ain't
> broke don't fix it.
That's one of my favorite sayings. It loses wars for my opponents [in
games] and keeps my competition in the stone age! There's a few other saying
that might apply; don't compare apples to oranges, don't try and squeeze a
round peg into a square hole. Look I've got two more saying than you, I'm
winning.
> >> new features. But that would have had problems in and of itself. How
many
> >> hardcore "raiders" would keep their accounts with EQ2's raid
*smallness*?
> >> Not too many I would think.
> >
> > Obviously things like that would never have been introduced.
>
> How can you say obviously? Unless you're the designer you *don't* know.
How
> many players stay in EQ1 now just for raiding? Or just because friends do?
Are you arguing both for and against it? Maybe it's not obvious. Maybe
they'd do it, and it would only offend 2% while making it a better game for
the other 98%. But.... if that's the case... why'd you bring it up?
> > I've given you five points on how they have been 'destroying' it,
and
> > how they are destroying it now. Did you read my original post? These
points
> > also explained why EQ1 is ultimately doomed by EQ2's introduction. If
you
> > want me to substantiate any of these, why don't you quote one and ask?
>
> Five points that don't necessarily add up to 'destroying'. Yes I read it
> and no, I don't agree. That's why I posted. I don't specifically agree
that
> EQ2 has killed EQ1. What was the original design decisions. For all you
> know, Verant (then Sony) had an original five year lifespan. Maybe they're
> keeping it alive for the simple fact that it *is* doing as well as it has
> done.
Well I don't imagine they'd be keeping it alive if it were losing money.
> >> Aha! But by complaining that EQ2 shouldn't have been introduced and all
> >> money and time investments should have been made into EQL kind of
> >> contradicts this statement. Face it, capitalism is about *choices*, not
> >> simply about making money.
> >
> > At the risk of repeating myself, I'm not going to argue capitalism
VS
> > socialism. Also, I really don't see how that statement is relevant to
this
> > discussion. I don't believe I was proposing a socialist solution to the
> > EQ1/2 problem.
>
> Neither was I. I was just pointing to some flaws in your opinions.
No, you were asserting that capitalism is about choice. Now, you may not
realise it, but to many people that is a statement screaming out for
rebuttal.
Regards,
James
RJB
> "RJB" <roba...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:19gh6tdvr0go7$.dlg@robartle.nospam.hotmail.com...
>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:21:00 GMT, James Hicks wrote:
>>>>> doesn't apply - and that Sony have made the same mistake.
>>>> A few hundred thousand fans with little or no alternatives; until now
> that
>>>> is. And just *why* would you say this is an *antiquated* principle?
> Seems
>>>> pretty much up to date to me.
>>>
>>> They had dozens of alternatives. I say it's an antiquated principle
>>> because it's worked for a hundred years on conventional products, that
> are
>>> very different to EQ and other product-services.
>>
>> If you like muds maybe. Other than that I have enough fingers left over
>> without going to toes. And do you remember the old saying? If it ain't
>> broke don't fix it.
>
> That's one of my favorite sayings. It loses wars for my opponents [in
> games] and keeps my competition in the stone age! There's a few other saying
> that might apply; don't compare apples to oranges, don't try and squeeze a
> round peg into a square hole. Look I've got two more saying than you, I'm
> winning.
Let sleeping dogs lie. Let your conscious be your guide. A bird in the hand
is worth two in the bush. We can keep going if you're going to push your
absurd I'm winning theme.
>
>>>> new features. But that would have had problems in and of itself. How
> many
>>>> hardcore "raiders" would keep their accounts with EQ2's raid
> *smallness*?
>>>> Not too many I would think.
>>>
>>> Obviously things like that would never have been introduced.
>>
>> How can you say obviously? Unless you're the designer you *don't* know.
> How
>> many players stay in EQ1 now just for raiding? Or just because friends do?
>
> Are you arguing both for and against it? Maybe it's not obvious. Maybe
> they'd do it, and it would only offend 2% while making it a better game for
> the other 98%. But.... if that's the case... why'd you bring it up?
I'm not arguing at all... except about your notions. Because certainly
*you* don't know it. Neither do you know that the reasons you're giving
that "EQ2 Killed EQ1" are valid. They're circumspect and based on
assumptions and unknowns. And if you can't see that then you're not as
bright as I'm giving you credit for. I'll quote your number five to get you
started: "I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark, and guess roughly 0%."
Pretty solid numbers there, huh?
>
>>> I've given you five points on how they have been 'destroying' it,
> and
>>> how they are destroying it now. Did you read my original post? These
> points
>>> also explained why EQ1 is ultimately doomed by EQ2's introduction. If
> you
>>> want me to substantiate any of these, why don't you quote one and ask?
>>
>> Five points that don't necessarily add up to 'destroying'. Yes I read it
>> and no, I don't agree. That's why I posted. I don't specifically agree
> that
>> EQ2 has killed EQ1. What was the original design decisions. For all you
>> know, Verant (then Sony) had an original five year lifespan. Maybe they're
>> keeping it alive for the simple fact that it *is* doing as well as it has
>> done.
>
> Well I don't imagine they'd be keeping it alive if it were losing money.
Hey nice sideskirt of the issue. Do you, for a fact, know what the planned
lifespan of EQ1 was? If so, what else can you tell us was going through
Brad's mind at the time?
>
>>>> Aha! But by complaining that EQ2 shouldn't have been introduced and all
>>>> money and time investments should have been made into EQL kind of
>>>> contradicts this statement. Face it, capitalism is about *choices*, not
>>>> simply about making money.
>>>
>>> At the risk of repeating myself, I'm not going to argue capitalism
> VS
>>> socialism. Also, I really don't see how that statement is relevant to
> this
>>> discussion. I don't believe I was proposing a socialist solution to the
>>> EQ1/2 problem.
>>
>> Neither was I. I was just pointing to some flaws in your opinions.
>
> No, you were asserting that capitalism is about choice. Now, you may not
> realise it, but to many people that is a statement screaming out for
> rebuttal.
And you're saying it isn't? I'll rebut that right now. Without *choice*
capitalism can not and will not work. How and why would one design a better
product when the choice is taken from the public to purchase said product?
--
RJB
11/16/2004 12:33:25 PM
"Follow your dreams. You can meet your goals. I am living proof. Beefcake!
BEEFCAKE!!!"
--Eric Cartman (South Park)
Charles Whitney
"Bruce Miller" <bm3...@ark.ship.edu> wrote in message
news:ebe9bd61.04111...@posting.google.com...
> I'm pretty happy with my EQ2 experience thusfar (only have a few minor
> gripes regarding tradeskills). One of my favorite things about this
> game is I can play it windowed. I'll sick my pet on a mob and then
> switch over to the web browser, chat client, or whatever during the
> fight. No more alt-tabbing out of a fullscreen game for me. :)
That's nice. So the fights in EQ2 are so uninteresting and unengaging you'd
rather be websurfing or chatting when that's going on?
C
Ben Sisson
>
>"Ben Sisson" <ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>news:lgqdp0p3rhurp1gqh...@4ax.com...
>> A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
>> name "James Hicks" <nos...@forme.plz>:
>>
>> >4. The drain of EQ1's actual players into the beta and now into EQ2 live.
>> >EQ1 was already suffering a lower than normal population from the recent
>> >Gates/Bugs disaster, but it had won a lot of that credibility back with
>> >Omens. Now it undeservedly loses yet more playerbase to the newcomer.
>>
>> I don't understand "undeservedly". EQ2 is a newer game and deserves
>> those players as much as EQ1 does.
>>
>>
>> >However, if they weren't going to do that, they should have either
>announced
>> >the truth about EQ2 from the outset - that it is a replacement, not a
>> >parallel game at all - and offered EQ1 players incentives to come across.
>> >The way they're doing it now is probably going to make them more money
>> >though, and more fool us.
>>
>> Mmorpgs have finite life spans. There will come a time when no
>> resources are devoted to EQ2 either. Or WoW. I am impressed that EQ
>> stayed as popular as it did for as long as it did. I don't think
>> anyone believed it would hold on in the face of so many competing
>> later mmorpgs. But it did. But it can't last forever, nor was it
>> intended to.
>
>UO is still running.
No game like UO has come out yet. Unlike EQ, which has a dozen clones.
>Meridian 59 is still running.
Subsistence levels only.
kaev
<jamesg...@shaw.ca> wrote:
<snip>
>> 5. The ultimate death of Everquest 1: Exactly how many new players do we
>> think will want to play EQ1 with a product called EQ2 on the market? I'm
>> going to take a wild stab in the dark, and guess roughly 0%.
>
> I think word of mouth will still attract people to EQ1, but it's going
>to be lower and lower. I saw a prediction that EQ1 has one more expansion
>left in it. More and more, I'm starting to believe that's true.
>
EQ will begin to die as soon as the subscribers believe there
will be no more expansions. If SOE wants to keep milking this
cash cow they need to announce a planned expansion fairly soon.
I hope they do. There's a guild waiting for me in EQ2, but I
can't afford the hardware upgrade atm, and besides I've got 10
months or so left on my EQ subscription anda number of things
I still want to do in game.
The player population has taken a visible hit on the server I
play on, but not a huge one. It reminds me a lot of the DAoC
release (which followed the debacle known as Luclin, quite an
amusing parallel to the more recent Dx9 + GoD mess). I think
there's a fair bit of life left in EQ, but it is well within
SOE's power to kill it fairly quickly via neglect.
kaev
Gelgar
"James Hicks" <nos...@forme.plz> wrote in message
Most corporations do pay a monthly fee for support and the expansion
packs are
the new versions. This business model might be selling apples to your
example of selling
oranges but that doesn't invalidate the model from being applied to oranges
successfully.
Now you could still not have OoW(XP) or GoD(2000), or LDoN(NT) but I bet
your still paying
a monthly support fee for LoY(Win95). And when Sony(Microsoft) suddenly
announces a new all inclusive
upgrade path Platinum(XP) for a suddenly low price you say hey maybe I
should, just to get the latest.
You then don't just chuck your monthly support out the window.
Microsoft went through their period of releasing product not ready,
buggy and sometimes in some
weird direction(ME). I really don't see much difference in any large
successful software house from Sony.
I have always paid for monthly support, always faced having to upgrade to
the newest version to get the new
content (and usually receive ton'o'bugs as well). Yes I can choose to not
pay for support I also can choose to play
by myself and tell all my customers we just don't offer that or I have a bug
that they just will have to live with.
Now start a thread on someone needing to sue a software company for
breach of contract when said paid software does not do the things they
stated it would and I will join you on your soapbox.
42
What are you saying? That EQ1 is more engaging?
EQ1 is so unengaging I can play 2 copies at once simultaneously
effectively, even during a fairly 'hectic' ldon, where time is a factor,
or during most raids, where being on the ball is a factor.
And lets face it, 2boxxing is the only way to keep EQ1 interesting
enough for me to even play.
Tyas
dead bodies lying in the middle of the street. How unusual. ((sorry old
friends joke). It had the whole 'I don't fight I just run a bar as a
job' motif going.
>>Meridian 59 is still running.
>
>
> Subsistence levels only.
as it will break even for them. Make it a value-add to their existing
service; Here, sign up for the all access pass so you can play EQ2 and
'whatever the hell they make next' and we will let you download EQ with
all of the expansions for $10 to have something to fool with when the
other servers are down. Don't forget to use /n00bbuff to pick which
level to start at, with appropriate gear (and AA's if you are of the level).
Charles Whitney
> In article <2vva7lF...@uni-berlin.de>, cbill...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> "Bruce Miller" <bm3...@ark.ship.edu> wrote in message
>> news:ebe9bd61.04111...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> > I'm pretty happy with my EQ2 experience thusfar (only have a few minor
>> > gripes regarding tradeskills). One of my favorite things about this
>> > game is I can play it windowed. I'll sick my pet on a mob and then
>> > switch over to the web browser, chat client, or whatever during the
>> > fight. No more alt-tabbing out of a fullscreen game for me. :)
>>
>> That's nice. So the fights in EQ2 are so uninteresting and unengaging
>> you'd
>> rather be websurfing or chatting when that's going on?
>
> What are you saying? That EQ1 is more engaging?
Not at all, (I don't own EQ2) but then how long have you been playing EQ1?
If that had been my reaction to EQ1 within one week of purchasing it I would
have dumped the game right there. I certainly wouldn't have said I was
happy with my gaming experience thus far.
C
James Hicks
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:30:43 GMT, James Hicks wrote:
> >> If you like muds maybe. Other than that I have enough fingers left over
> >> without going to toes. And do you remember the old saying? If it ain't
> >> broke don't fix it.
> >
> > That's one of my favorite sayings. It loses wars for my opponents
[in
> > games] and keeps my competition in the stone age! There's a few other
saying
> > that might apply; don't compare apples to oranges, don't try and squeeze
a
> > round peg into a square hole. Look I've got two more saying than you,
I'm
> > winning.
>
> Let sleeping dogs lie. Let your conscious be your guide. A bird in the
hand
> is worth two in the bush. We can keep going if you're going to push your
> absurd I'm winning theme.
...I'm going to quote that word for word. This is mostly for the
archaeologists who may one day need as much supporting material as possible
to dig your point up.
> >> How can you say obviously? Unless you're the designer you *don't* know.
> > How
> >> many players stay in EQ1 now just for raiding? Or just because friends
do?
> >
> > Are you arguing both for and against it? Maybe it's not obvious.
Maybe
> > they'd do it, and it would only offend 2% while making it a better game
for
> > the other 98%. But.... if that's the case... why'd you bring it up?
>
> I'm not arguing at all... except about your notions. Because certainly
> *you* don't know it. Neither do you know that the reasons you're giving
> that "EQ2 Killed EQ1" are valid. They're circumspect and based on
> assumptions and unknowns. And if you can't see that then you're not as
> bright as I'm giving you credit for. I'll quote your number five to get
you
> started: "I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark, and guess roughly
0%."
> Pretty solid numbers there, huh?
You have discovered the deterministic limitations of the human mind. If
we're arguing on that level, I challenge you to establish that I am not a
figment of your imagination.
The problem with such discussions is that they are inherently pointless.
The really great thing about a 'logical' argument is that two people of
opposing views can come to an understanding of the opposite view and usually
learn something from one another.
> >> Five points that don't necessarily add up to 'destroying'. Yes I read
it
> >> and no, I don't agree. That's why I posted. I don't specifically agree
> > that
> >> EQ2 has killed EQ1. What was the original design decisions. For all you
> >> know, Verant (then Sony) had an original five year lifespan. Maybe
they're
> >> keeping it alive for the simple fact that it *is* doing as well as it
has
> >> done.
> >
> > Well I don't imagine they'd be keeping it alive if it were losing
money.
>
> Hey nice sideskirt of the issue. Do you, for a fact, know what the planned
> lifespan of EQ1 was? If so, what else can you tell us was going through
> Brad's mind at the time?
Of course I did, however my prescience and psychometry skills are not
relevant to this discussion.
Why do I need to know Brad's original plan (now five years old) in order
to restablish that EQ2 has squished EQ1? I'm not talking about Brad, or
Verant, but Sony, and not about five years ago, but today.
Bruce Miller
I can only do that for green and blue solo mobs right now. For white
and higher ones, I have to help my beetle summon out with some spells
(which always results in the mob turning on me) :\
I also switch over to other tasks when regenning, though regen seems
pretty fast in EQ2 compared to some other MMORPGs I've played.
Hopefully, I'll be able to upgrade my summon spell level soon so it
can solo tougher mobs on it's own. Spent several hours last night
trying to find upgrades, but noone seems to be selling App III or
Adept I scrolls. :(
RJB
> You have discovered the deterministic limitations of the human mind. If
> we're arguing on that level, I challenge you to establish that I am not a
> figment of your imagination.
I wish it was. At least then I'd be conversing with someone coherent. But
as it stands you're not. Buh bye.
--
RJB
11/17/2004 9:19:14 AM
The wise speak when they have something to say, the fools speak when they
have to say something.
--Anonymous
Davian
"Bruce Miller" <bm3...@ark.ship.edu> wrote in message
news:ebe9bd61.04111...@posting.google.com...
>
> I also switch over to other tasks when regenning, though regen seems
> pretty fast in EQ2 compared to some other MMORPGs I've played.
>
Are you set up to eat food when hungry and drink when thirsty? Even eating
storebought normal food / water, raises your health / power regen
tremendously. Normally I'm completely regened by the time I find the next
fight.
--
Dearic - Dwarven Warlord of E'ci
http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=50248
joh...@example.com
> Hell as a 'brand statement' SoE is probably likely to keep EQ up as long
> as it will break even for them.
That's unlikely.
The EverQuest brand would live on fine with EQ2. EQ1 isn't necessary
for that.
SOE would pull the plug on EQ1 long before it reached break even,
because moving EQ1 resources to EQ2 would be more profitable.
Bruce Miller
> "Bruce Miller" <bm3...@ark.ship.edu> wrote in message
> news:ebe9bd61.04111...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > I also switch over to other tasks when regenning, though regen seems
> > pretty fast in EQ2 compared to some other MMORPGs I've played.
> >
>
> Are you set up to eat food when hungry and drink when thirsty? Even eating
> storebought normal food / water, raises your health / power regen
> tremendously. Normally I'm completely regened by the time I find the next
> fight.
Yes, I am doing that. Without that, regenning from yellow or red takes
forever. With auto-food/water, I can usually fill up from red in a
minute or so, and if I'm running around looking for mobs, I'm usually
filled up by the time I find another one.
Unless I'm grouped, I prefer to stand in area (usually on a rock,
stump, or something else elevated) and just camp the respawn of
whatever mob I'm after.
It'd be nice if I could turn off auto-food/water when I'm camping easy
solo mobs that my beetle summon can kill on its own. Paying 12c every
few minutes seems like a waste if I'm just killing gray or green mobs
for some quest.
John Henders
>How do I feel about that, I don't hear you ask?
>I think EQ1 actually funded EQ2's development and marketing. I think that
>while I was paying for one product, Sony was taking my money and making the
>next product - which I then have to buy all over again if I want to continue
>playing. Without getting too dramatic about it, they basically plundered my
>favorite game of all its resources - money, old players, new players,
>marketing, and devlopment - to make the new product. I'm not a happy camper.
Worse than that, EQ1 financed Planetside and that aborted attempt at
cloning Empire. Can't remember the name right now. As proof of your
suspicion, one of my guildmates was a guide for the various EQ expansion
Betas. He told me during the Gates beta that most of the devs he knew
personally had been moved to EQ2.
>So what should they have done, I don't hear you ask?
>However, if they weren't going to do that, they should have either announced
>the truth about EQ2 from the outset - that it is a replacement, not a
>parallel game at all - and offered EQ1 players incentives to come across.
>The way they're doing it now is probably going to make them more money
>though, and more fool us.
Basically they applied the traditional business model to a new kind of
business. It makes sense for Sony to finance the development of new TV's
from the sales of the current generation. For an ongoing revenue stream
like a MMOG, a different model might be more appropriate. However, if
they grow revenues with the people left playing EQ1 and the new people
playing EQ2 then their business model will have worked. If they find EQ1
is a ghost town in a year and EQ2 doesn't pick up the slack it will have
failed as a business model.
--
Artificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity.
GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v
b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y*
John Henders
>Mmorpgs have finite life spans. There will come a time when no
>resources are devoted to EQ2 either. Or WoW. I am impressed that EQ
>stayed as popular as it did for as long as it did. I don't think
>anyone believed it would hold on in the face of so many competing
>later mmorpgs. But it did. But it can't last forever, nor was it
>intended to.
Who says? MMOG's dont have enough history to believe that to be true.
They could have easily bolted a better graphics engine on every few
years, rather than writing a completely new game designed to canabalize
their existing user base. In fact they just did with the new dx9 engine.
The new engine probably has the potential to do just as good a job as
the EQ2 engine if they were willing to spend the money on new models and
textures,
Davian
"John Henders" <jhen...@example.com> wrote in message
news:cnkqdf$gdf$4...@wu.bogon.com...
> In <lgqdp0p3rhurp1gqh...@4ax.com> Ben Sisson
<ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> writes:
>
> >Mmorpgs have finite life spans. There will come a time when no
> >resources are devoted to EQ2 either. Or WoW. I am impressed that EQ
> >stayed as popular as it did for as long as it did. I don't think
> >anyone believed it would hold on in the face of so many competing
> >later mmorpgs. But it did. But it can't last forever, nor was it
> >intended to.
>
> Who says? MMOG's dont have enough history to believe that to be true.
> They could have easily bolted a better graphics engine on every few
> years, rather than writing a completely new game designed to canabalize
> their existing user base. In fact they just did with the new dx9 engine.
And we saw how well that worked out.... My dwarf warrior still can't run up
stairs easily.
> The new engine probably has the potential to do just as good a job as
> the EQ2 engine if they were willing to spend the money on new models and
> textures,
>
But they won't. Even after two graphics engine updates, EQ1 still looks 5
years old.
And the graphics aren't the only thing which cause a new version to be
desireable. Going to EQ2 allowed them to make all kinds of design changes
which were just not possible in EQ1, despite the fact that they were ruining
the game. Almost all of EQ1's sacred cows were dragged behind the barn and
slaughtered. (Gleefully I would imagine.)
Complete heal makes clerics the only "real" healers? Gone. All three priest
classes really are equal now.
/discipline defensive gives warriors a permanent tanking advantage over every
other class? Gone. Warriors and Crusaders now have different (and
presumably more equal) abilities.
75% slow spells mean you can't balance content so it's doable both with and
without slow? Gone. I haven't seen percentages posted yet, but 25% for the
earlier ones is the rumor... and I'd be shocked if any slow got above 40 or 50
percent at max level.
Massive mudflation which had everyone in max stat gear by the time they hit
the "Endgame" from 2 expansions ago? Gone. All items wiped and reset, and
the new replacements hopefully done in a more sane fashion. (Can you honestly
imagine trying to get EQ1 players to agree to an equipment wipe?)
Charm spells overpowered to the point where a lone enchanter with a pet can
outdamage an entire group of DPS classes? Gone. (actually looking at my
spell list, I see Coersers get charm at 37. I'm willing to bet its nerfed to
hell and back compared to EQ1 charm though.)
Players able to meditate during combat makes it near impossible to design a
"long" encounter where you risk running out of mana instead of all the
encounters being "hard" encounters, where someone has to die for the players
to lose. Gone. Sitting during combat doesn't matter. You gain back hp /
mana at a very high rate out of combat, and an extremely low rate during
combat.
--
Davian - Wood Elf Warrior on Guk
Dearic - Dwarven Fighter on Mistmoore
Talynne - Half Elf Scout on Mistmoore
Dearic - Dwarven Warlord on E'ci
Talynne - Half Elf Assassin on E'ci
Davian
"Davian" <dav...@nospammindspring.com> wrote in message
news:v%ond.3780$Qh3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Oh yes, and KEI, a 3-4 hour long mana regen buff, castable on people not in
your party? I think they not only killed it, but then took turns pissing on
the grave.