Originally posted by Nizumzen 

 

You mean the guy who totally screwed up Vanguard? Did you not read any of the controversy about how poorly he managed the development of that game?

I don't think Ginkeq was suggesting anyone bring back Brad to run a business, but rather to create a game while someone else manages him.

Yes Vanguard was/is a disaster, but even in the horrible shape it was/is in, it is still a better game than almost anything any other company has put out in many years. 

I'm not defending what happened at Sigil, but I can see that vanguard could have turned into a monster of a successful game had the project been properly managed. 

Originally posted by blueturtle13

Everquest is a great franchise with a ton of lore to pull from plus it makes money. Say whay you want about SOE but they have a good IP in their hands. EQ still has a loyal player base and the game makes money. EQ2 was a let down for SOE but the numbers are not as bad as you might think and it makes money. So letting the IP die with EQ2 just would not make any sense. So perhaps they are already working on it or have been for awhile now. Maybe a combination of EQ and EQ2. Call it Norrath or Norrath online. Just saying ;)

Please explain why it would be a good idea to continue the IP that you think is so powerful.  I see a once great game that many people are put off by the direction it went, despite have a small devoted following still.  I see a sequel that failed to come close to any of the companies expectations.  It also had every advantage of having the everquest intelectual property to pull from and look how that turned out. 

I honestly think labeling anything everquest right now will put negative associations onto a game.  Soe needs to distance itself from its past and start fresh. 

It is not just me that feel it is a powerful IP. It is fact. Every EQ game released was a money maker. EQ1 made buckets full (the WOW of it's day) EQ2 has a solid player base (now anyways) the game continues to make money. Even EQOA was a money maker. Smedley has said himself the IP will continue to move foward ;)

         SOE has come out and said that it was a mistake when they created EQ2......They said something along the lines that there were too many expectations because of its predecesor and that the game wasnt as successful as a result.......Also I think their shot at EQ3 was named vanguard and it has pretty much failed or been mediocre at best......Also they could have kept EQ2 or Vanguard more hardcore like EQ1 was, but they decided to make them more like WoW once they started losing subs........

What the OP fails to realize is that EQ was successful because of lack of PVP.  They stole most of UO's thunder when they created a world where players weren't constantly looking over their shoulders.

I doubt very much that we will see another EQ anytime in the near future.  Neither EQ nor EQ2 is doing well at all and another iteration is not going to change that.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

What the OP fails to realize is that EQ was successful because of lack of PVP.  They stole most of UO's thunder when they created a world where players weren't constantly looking over their shoulders.

I doubt very much that we will see another EQ anytime in the near future.  Neither EQ nor EQ2 is doing well at all and another iteration is not going to change that.

I agree with the first statement; most players do not like being ganked in PVP and can be driven out of games with ruthless PVP elements in them.

I do think another EQ (EQ3?) IF done properly and polished very well could rock and would take a huge slice of WOW's aging playerbase.  Much of WOW's success was polish and simplicity.

Any mistake a new EQ would make would probably involve forced linear gameplay such as a instanced tutorial that frustrated players scream to get out of and dread with every new character they re-roll.  WOW, with it's tooltips, showed the proper way to introduce players into a gameworld without forcing them to follow some scripted scene.

They are doing well. They do not have WOW numbers but WOW wont in 10 years either. EQ is a strong franchise or they would not keep making xp every year. Smedley said it was a mistake to CALL it Everquest 2 he did not say that it was a mistake to make the game.

Originally posted by blueturtle13

It is not just me that feel it is a powerful IP. It is fact. Every EQ game released was a money maker. EQ1 made buckets full (the WOW of it's day) EQ2 has a solid player base (now anyways) the game continues to make money. Even EQOA was a money maker. Smedley has said himself the IP will continue to move foward ;)

Everquest made buckets full of money for two reasons.  It was a pioneering game in the genre at the time of an explosive growth rate and secondly it had almost no competition for years.  The IP of everquest had nothing to do with its success.

Sure EQ2 makes money, but all mmos make money to some degree or another, but I wouldn't exactly call every mmo a powerful IP now would you?

I think it is very safe to say that EQ2 has underachieved by a very wide margin the expectation of soe considering it did had the most recognized mmo IP behind it.  The best it could muster is about 1/3 the success of the original.  I doubt it even breaks 200k users.   That doesn't exactly speak volumes about the power of the IP now does it?  Especially if you consider that soe is still aiming for games that will attract millions of users.  Nothing about the everquest IP suggests that it will attract those types of numbers.  

If you can log onto and play an MMO it is doing better than many would like to admit. At the very least the game, whatever it may be, is making more than enough money to keep the servers open.  In fact, it is making a lot more than enough to keep the servers open. No company  will keep the doors open to just break even every month.  Norrath lore is legendary among rpg gamers and while i agree, three games at the same time based on that lore would be spreading it a bit thin EQ3 is something i  see as very likely in the future.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

What the OP fails to realize is that EQ was successful because of lack of PVP.  They stole most of UO's thunder when they created a world where players weren't constantly looking over their shoulders.

I doubt very much that we will see another EQ anytime in the near future.  Neither EQ nor EQ2 is doing well at all and another iteration is not going to change that.

I hardly think that is the reason it was succesfful.  It was successful because it was fun and the genre was in its infancy.  It was very different than UO, but they were both very successful at the time.  There were almost no other choices then and very few people playing MMo's in general.

People didn't play EQ because they said, "Ha, finally an MMO without PVP."

Originally posted by Daffid011

Originally posted by blueturtle13

It is not just me that feel it is a powerful IP. It is fact. Every EQ game released was a money maker. EQ1 made buckets full (the WOW of it's day) EQ2 has a solid player base (now anyways) the game continues to make money. Even EQOA was a money maker. Smedley has said himself the IP will continue to move foward ;)

 

Everquest made buckets full of money for two reasons.  It was a pioneering game in the genre at the time of an explosive growth rate and secondly it had almost no competition for years.  The IP of everquest had nothing to do with its success.

Sure EQ2 makes money, but all mmos make money to some degree or another.  I think it is very safe to say that EQ2 has underachieved by a very wide margin the expectation of soe considering it did had the most recognized mmo IP behind it.  The best it could muster is about 1/3 the success of the original.  I doubt it even break 200k users.   That doesn't exactly speak volumes about the power of the IP now does it?  Especially if you consider that soe is still aiming for games that will attract millions of users.  Nothing about the everquest IP suggests that it will attract those types of numbers.  

 

 

    Yes you are right by saying it underachieved but that kinda goes without saying ;) But it does speak volumes to the power of the IP sorry.

EQ is 10 years old and still has a good population for how old it is.

EQ2 has around 150 to 200 thousand people playing? Thats a lot for a game that underachieves, Is a sequel and is 5 years old.

EQOA was played by a few people on PS2.

Everquest books have sold reasonably well over the years

Even the Console Champions games sold well.

The IP is strong. Like it or not.

Originally posted by Agricola1

Originally posted by jusomdude

Why would such a greedy company turn their product into something so niche and severly limit their customer base while alienating their current customers?

 

Am I the only one that reads the irony in that statement?

No, you're not the only one.

---

Originally posted by Daffid011
A lot of people enjoyed everquest back in the day, but times were much different back then.  Most of those same people talk about all the great times (myself included), but if given the choice to play a game like everquest again they would not.  I know I'm generalizing here, but I don't think the foundation of what made everquest great would attract people today.  Even the people who enjoyed it 10 years ago.
Soe would be smart to not use the everquest name in an mmo again until both other games are gone.  There is just to much expectation from previous everquest players and to much reputation of those games for others to take interest in.  As someone else mentioned it would just further split the population of the current games.  Everquest 2 never really did better than around 1/3 of what everquest was doing at its height, so I don't think a third installment makes much sense since the second one didn't do so well. 
 

---

Old Everquest had two faces. One was a charming art-style crafted world, and the other an ugly hardcore punishing game. And yes I'd agree the latter I think few people would play.

Originally posted by blueturtle13 

    Yes you are right by saying it underachieved but that kinda goes without saying ;) But it does speak volumes to the power of the IP sorry.

EQ is 10 years old and still has a good population for how old it is.

EQ2 has around 150 to 200 thousand people playing? Thats a lot for a game that underachieves, Is a sequel and is 5 years old.

EQOA was played by a few people on PS2.

Everquest books have sold reasonably well over the years

Even the Console Champions games sold well.

The IP is strong. Like it or not.

Let me clarify my statements.

If SOE was to make a new fantasy based mmo I think they would be better servered with a new IP than returning to everquest. 

No matter how powerful you think it is, the numbers and history suggest it may not be the best investment.

Everquest peeked around 550k users.  The sequel peeked under 200k users in a time when the mmo market went from about 7 million users to 50+.    

If the original IP went 550k to a sequel that struggled under 200k, what would you expect the third installment to do?  If the everquest name can't bring at least as many players to the sequel as the original then I doubt it will somehow be strong enough a third time around and I doubt soe is aiming for games with a few hundred thousand players anymore.   

Saying things like "not bad". "played by a few people" and "still makes money" are not qualities you look for in a powerful IP if you are going to invest tens of millions into a new mmo.   I really think they would be better off with a new world and free themselves from all the predetermined expectations that come with the everquest franchise.  As much as I do enjoy the fond memmories I have of norath, I think it is time to move on.  The person who really put the life into that world has been gone for a long time and it shows.

Originally posted by Nizumzen

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Ginkeq

EQ3 imo

EQ3 = EQ1 + better graphics and all servers are PvP like Sullon Zek

 

signed

 

It is unwise for EQ 1 and EQ 2 to compete with itself with an EQ 3.

 

 

We need the vision and talent of EQ 1 --yes, bring Mr. McQuaid back into the fold-- with innovation.  We want community, content, creativity, and challenge.  

 

 

But we also want accessibility, intuitive features, and customer support.

 

You mean the guy who totally screwed up Vanguard? Did you not read any of the controversy about how poorly he managed the development of that game?

Yes.  I did.

But it is my point:  we need innovation and immersion, not an old title.

Originally posted by Nizumzen

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Ginkeq

EQ3 imo

EQ3 = EQ1 + better graphics and all servers are PvP like Sullon Zek

 

signed

 

It is unwise for EQ 1 and EQ 2 to compete with itself with an EQ 3.

 

 

We need the vision and talent of EQ 1 --yes, bring Mr. McQuaid back into the fold-- with innovation.  We want community, content, creativity, and challenge.  

 

 

But we also want accessibility, intuitive features, and customer support.

 

You mean the guy who totally screwed up Vanguard? Did you not read any of the controversy about how poorly he managed the development of that game?

Eh Vanguard was awful because of funding. The direction they were going and the ideas behind the game were excellent.

Originally posted by Sortis

Originally posted by Nizumzen

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Ginkeq

EQ3 imo

EQ3 = EQ1 + better graphics and all servers are PvP like Sullon Zek

 

signed

 

It is unwise for EQ 1 and EQ 2 to compete with itself with an EQ 3.

 

 

We need the vision and talent of EQ 1 --yes, bring Mr. McQuaid back into the fold-- with innovation.  We want community, content, creativity, and challenge.  

 

 

But we also want accessibility, intuitive features, and customer support.

 

You mean the guy who totally screwed up Vanguard? Did you not read any of the controversy about how poorly he managed the development of that game?

 

Eh Vanguard was awful because of funding. The direction they were going and the ideas behind the game were excellent.

Ten years ago.

       Another thing yo uhave to consider with SOEs games is that they have station pass/access where players pay one price and have access to several games including EQ1, EQ2, SWG, and Vanguard.......When people say EQ2 has 200k players its hard to say how many of those are EQ2 only and how many are station access.....SOE never releases their numbers for station access so we never really know how well any of their games is doing on its own.........

Originally posted by Sortis

Originally posted by Nizumzen

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Ginkeq

EQ3 imo

EQ3 = EQ1 + better graphics and all servers are PvP like Sullon Zek

 

signed

 

It is unwise for EQ 1 and EQ 2 to compete with itself with an EQ 3.

 

 

We need the vision and talent of EQ 1 --yes, bring Mr. McQuaid back into the fold-- with innovation.  We want community, content, creativity, and challenge.  

 

 

But we also want accessibility, intuitive features, and customer support.

 

You mean the guy who totally screwed up Vanguard? Did you not read any of the controversy about how poorly he managed the development of that game?

 

Eh Vanguard was awful because of funding. The direction they were going and the ideas behind the game were excellent.

Not really. I've played Vanguard since beta 3 and it was always going to fail. It just did not live up to the hype.

I agree the ideas were great, but it didn't work out. Why was that? In large part I think it was down to the management (i.e Brad and Co).

---

If the original IP went 550k to a sequel that struggled under 200k, what would you expect the third installment to do? If the everquest name can't bring at least as many players to the sequel as the original then I doubt it will somehow be strong enough a third time around and I doubt soe is aiming for games with a few hundred thousand players anymore.

---

I personally think if an Everquest game was good enough then it would pull in people anyway. The problem is as you say the creators behind the magic of Everquest went a long time ago.