Is SOE Abandoning Everquest?
by Loral on April 21, 2007
Almost since its birth, players have been asking about the possible death of Everquest. Any game requiring a company's commitment as much as a massive online game will put doubt in the minds of the players. What happens if the company loses its motivation to maintain the game before the players lose the motivation to play? The remaining players of Asheron's Call 2 found out when it closed down shortly after an expansion's release.
Let's take a look at the current status of Everquest.
Is Everquest dead? That requires a personal definition for a dead MMO. For the sake of this article, I will define MMO death as the lack of any support at all. Only when the servers are shut down, when all the developers are moved off to other projects, when all the support shuts down, and when players are unable to play; only then is a MMO really dead. Everquest is a long way from dead.
Is EQ dying? As long as new expansions continue to be produced and released and as long as there are enough players to allow groups and raids to face existing encounters, a MMO isn't dying. By this definition, Everquest is not dying.
But back to the original question: Is SOE Abandoning Everquest?
This is a harder question to define but let us consider a few known variables.
SOE is a different sort of company than other massive online game producers. While other MMO companies might focus on a single title, SOE has built a business around running multiple games with the same back-end infrastructure. They act as a MMO service provider. Not only do they run games with few actual players but they even pick up games that might be struggling. Matrix Online is one such example.
One element easily used to gauge the health of Everquest is to watch Everquest Online Adventures. EQOA has a lot of difficulty to overcome. It is a console title for an older system. It required specialized hardware, a wired network adapter and keyboard, to run. It had very little expansion or patch potential since patches had to fit within a Playstation 2 memory card. How EQOA ever got out the door is somewhat of a miracle. It isn't a bad game but it required a lot of work from the player to even get started.
Everquest Online Adventures still operates today, four years after its original release. With the release of the Playstation 3, it would still seem that EQOA's future is even more bleak but still it hangs on.
EQOA is the MMO we should watch to see just how long SOE will keep a MMO alive before deciding to pull the plug. Right now it would appear that any loss SOE accepts in relation to EQOA is low enough to make it worth keeping around. They can lower this loss by tying it into the rest of the server, network, and support infrastructure used by all of the other games they support.
This broad MMO infrastructure means that any of the SOE-branded MMOs are likely to stay online for a very long time. EQ, as one of the more popular SOE MMOs, is no exception.
SOE continues to announce and release new expansions for Everquest twice a year. While some, like the Serpent's Spine, have more to offer than others, like Prophecy of Ro, a lot of new content gets released every year into a game now eight years old.
SOE recently made a strategic decision that had many questioning the health of the game. The Serpent's Spine, an expansion intended to bring new players into the game by offering a new player race and large hunting areas, quests, and encounters for levels 1 to 75, was released only digitally. They did not sell it retail and did not offer a boxed version. For an expansion intended to bring new players into EQ, this seemed a strange decision. This practice continued with the Buried Sea.
This shift to online only releases seems to dictate that SOE has changed its philosophy in relation to EQ. Rather than attempt to bring new players into EQ, SOE hopes to bring older players back to EQ and keep current players playing. Given the very stiff competition of World of Warcraft, this might be a smart move. In the mind of one pompous egotistical high elf, EQ cannot compete with World of Warcraft for new players.
SOE recently announced the release of a new compilation pack for Everquest called the Everquest Anniversary Edition. This $20 boxed package will be available retail and includes Everquest and every current expansion. That is an amazing deal considering that, for us old timers, the base game and all thirteen expansions cost about $400. The release of the Anniversary edition could do a better job of bringing in new players than the release of the Serpent's Spine. Only time will tell.
What of Everquest 2? How does it relate to SOE's attitude towards EQ? We cannot know what is in the minds of the management at SOE but we can make assumptions on their overt behavior.
Everquest 2 cost a lot of money and a lot of that money likely came from Everquest's profits. SOE put a lot into the technology and marketing of EQ2 going so far as to release an entirely new set of player models strictly to market to Asian gamers. One cannot help but wonder if the money spent on Asian-friendly player models might instead have been spent on new player models for Everquest. Since the first days players asked for new player models we heard that the costs were simply too high. Yet a short time later SOE announces the release of new player models for EQ2. It is possible that these models were financed by the Taiwanese developer of Everquest 2, Soga, but I could never get a clear answer when I asked this question to SOE.
While SOE chose to release The Serpent's Spine download only, they still released and heavily marketed Echos of Faydwer Everquest 2 expansion to retail shelves. Again one could speculate that this shows SOE's desire to market only one of these games to new players. We cannot know the exact resources SOE spends on one game over another but we can safely speculate that EQ2 takes up significantly more resources than EQ. When one company runs two games, or in this case even more, there are times when its resources have to go one way or another.
What does this all mean for existing Everquest players? Not much. As long as we desire it, Everquest is likely to continue. As long as expansions are profitable, we will continue to see them every six months. As long as SOE has a team of artists, designers, and programmers dedicated to Everquest, we should continue to see improvements in the game.
There are areas where SOE's focus on EQ2 hurts Everquest, however, and it is important that our voices are heard. Better quality control, new player models, better server and network stability, and improved exploitation prevention are all important topics to existing EQ players. These requests also require significant resources and only by speaking out can we clearly show SOE that it needs to spend the required resources Everquest deserves.
Is SOE abandoning Everquest? Only if we let them.
Loral Ciriclight
22 April 2007
loral@loralciriclight.com
Comment Posted by: Zolina on April 27, 2007 11:17 PM
I wouldn't say SoE is abandoning EverQuest, but they do seem to be neglecting it. A lot of the small details which made previous expansions special are missing in The Buried Sea. The lack of things to do for mid-level raiding guild players is disheartening.
Comment Posted by: Nolrog on April 28, 2007 07:14 AM
>>> While SOE chose to release The Serpent's Spine download only, they still released and heavily marketed Echos of Faydwer Everquest 2 expansion to retail shelves.
It's more than that. The retail version of Echoes was not only an expansion pack, it was a compilation pack. So people could pick it up, and have the core game as well as all the previous expansions. I found that an interesting decision (welcome too, as I had not purchased the previous expansions, and that brought me up to date.) Considering EoF and TSS had a lot of similaritites (being developed at the same time, expansion for levels 1 thru max, new playable race in both, both seemed to be directed at bringing new players in, etc.) It would have seemed logical that TSS would follow the distribution model, and not only be on the shelves (a decision that still puzzles me greatly) but it should have also been a compilation pack like EoF was.
Comment Posted by: Swampfunk on April 28, 2007 01:20 PM
EverQuest seems to be fairly healthy for the time being, as loral said. And he is right when he says SOE is a bunch of money monkeys...but what really pisses me off, is the the fact they just refuse to advertise.
There are soo many people in the world, EQ still needs to be advertised... to give up and play dead against WoW is foolish! Not everyone wants to play WoW!
The two games are in different leagues... WoW is attractive to many, but EverQuest still has some good times packed away in it...
But, I'm not giving up and saying, well WoW is better they win... I'm saying EQ is great, just needs new models and some more/better developers.
p.s.
check out my eq blog...
http://feedingthetroll.blogspot.com
Comment Posted by: ogrebears on April 29, 2007 01:28 AM
I think it really depends on how much it cost to keep the game running. You can see it hypnotically. If the everquest 1 team is made up of 40 people (sound, art, devs). And each makes 70K a year, everquest would need to make 2.8 million with out the subscriptions cost to break even.
There normally 2 expansions a year at 29.99 (30 to make it easy). They need to sell 93,333 expansion a year, or 46,666 each 6 months.
I don't know how many copys SOE sells, but i'm guessing it way over 46,666 an expantion. And even then i Doubt the team is 40 people making 70K.
Comment Posted by: Kaelon on April 29, 2007 01:43 AM
Is SOE abandoning EverQuest? No. But SOE can no longer make EverQuest a competitive game. Is EverQuest dying? Yes. It cannot bring in new blood: this is the definition of endangerment, and EverQuest is well on the path towards extinction.
Why can EverQuest not bring in new blood? The answer was actually broached in a really well-written article of this month's "Game Informer" magazine, where an MMO designer contributed an article lamenting how publishing companies put out a budget of $5-10M and ask small development houses to produce an MMO. The end-result tends to be decent, but not revolutionary, but when the publishers look at the proof of concept, they stack it up against World of Warcraft, point out all of the ways in which it falls short, and then, ultimately, reject the project. One big-name firm (Ubisoft) has even turned away new development work because, in their view, they'd rather fund their own development teams and possess the creative capital, than have the creative process outsourced to smaller start-ups, like Sigil. It's a fascinating read, and I recommend everyone to read it.
World of Warcraft's budget? Vivendi disclosed that it was funded by Blizzard at a starter sum of $90,000,000 just on development. It totally changed the game and the dollars behind how much money is necessary to create a competitive contender for new blood. This totally ups the ante, and more and more MMO development houses are going out of business or consolidating, since larger publishing firms would rather spend that sort of money on internal talent that they can retain, rather than outsourcing it. SOE's forthcoming purchase of Sigil is a harrowing deja vu of the Verant acquisition by Sony. In the backdrop of all of these potential games being cancelled (Mythica, Wish, Ultima Online 2 all being great recent casualties), EverQuest's subscription numbers continue to steadily decline.
World of Warcraft is a great game, and I love it; don't get me wrong. But I am frankly a bit saddened to see that one game, which triumphs so decisively, which claims so much time, from so many players, developers, industry insiders, and investors, has such a wide-reaching impact on how all other games are made, and ultimately, how games get cancelled.
Comment Posted by: Ghost of Zek on April 29, 2007 05:15 AM
Everquest is not going to wrap up and be closed down next week. That said, don't for a second think that SOE isn't completely aware of the number of paying accounts that have to be maintained in order to turn a profit. They have made projections, they are 100% aware of thier monthly churn of people leaving, and people coming back. Don't for one millisecond think that they do not have a known number at which the servers will be merged, then merged again, and so forth until only the most completely hooked players remain. At the last, when no more expansions are being made, and no more development is being done because everquest is nothing more than an ancient history that still pulls in a trickle of profit, and the sole remaining server is the last one standing; even then, SOE knows exactly how many accounts have to be maintained in order to turn a profit...and the day that last remaining server drops below the threshold it will be turned off.
Until then, rest safe in the knowledge that everquest will remain up, safe, and florish with the wit, and the repast of those people who hold it dear.
Is there a way to bring everquest back to life? Probably not. SOE would have to win back the trust of litteraly tens of thousands of people whom they have burned over the years. Those people have all told endless horror stories to thier gaming friends. Those friends who have never even played an SOE title have told thier frinds the horror stories and so forth to the point that even the most unbiased person has a deeply rooted conviction that SOE changes the rules on it's players at random (EQII Class and Crafting changesx2, and SWG Class, crafting and combat changes), is impossible to solo (EQ...), and is only for "hardcore raiders who hate casual players" (again...EQ). Heck, even a brief glance over there very forums where the "fans" of EQ liberally piss on the comments made by a fellow fan of EQ in a volley of praise over how "hardcore" EQ is because you have to repeat broken content endlessly in order to prove to your fellow fans how truely dedicated you are, help to fuel the view of EQ and SOE titles as being not for the average person. In fact you generally come away from most fan forums with a sense that new people are simply not wanted, and are to be treated like dirt.
Now ask yourself, if you read this forum, your a fan of the game (or where at one point), you know the flaws, the failures, the issues. How would you tell SOE in concrete terms what they should do to win back the hearts and wallets of all thos people they've burned over the years?
What grand plan would you have SOE persue?
If 10,000 fans of Everquest can't come up with a point by point plan to make Everquest rise from the ashes, then really what possible hope is there a bunch of developers in San Diego, who are more worried about thier carreers with SOE and thier ability to pay thier rent than any one game title, are going to do better?
Seriously, what plan would you form, would you have the stomach to go public, would you rally people to your cause, would you push with all your might, spend your own money, your own time?
Or will you just shoot people down? Be a forum troll? Quote things out of context? And generally waste time while never actually doing anything about the thing you say your so pasionate about?
Comment Posted by: Bunion on April 29, 2007 08:11 AM
When the MMORPG market was just taking off and EQ had around 500k subscribers, it seemed everyone wanted to make an MMORPG. All these developers figured they could put out a game and get 200-300k subscribers. Unfortunately that was not meant to be and there was a huge shake up and many games that did not make those loft expectations were ended and countless more canceled while they were still in development.
I think SoE knows they can't compete with the 6 million+ subscribers of Warcraft so they are going with the strategy of puting a bunch of games with smaller subscriber bases and make a profit that way. Perhaps the future holds more games targeted to specific playing types, but that is somewhat doubtful due to the huge cost involved in producing and running a MMORPG.
With original EQ they should have redone the character models a long time ago and agressively marketed that they they have the most bang for the buck. Meaning original EQ has by far the most content of any MMORPG out there. Unfortunately 95% of this content goes unused due to most of the players being high level and raiding. I couldn't even imagine being a true newbie and trying to find a group to do anything.
It looks like EQ will be left to die a slow death. Sure they will keep coming out with expansions until it no longer becomes profitable to do so, but unless they come up with something fantastic they are not going to get any massive amount of new players. But who wants to buy a game with 7 year old graphics? It seems they are focusing most of their efforts on to EQ2.
Comment Posted by: Kaelon on April 29, 2007 11:41 AM
Contrary to Ghost of Zek's opinions, most game publishers do not actually have a plan for disengagement. Games like Asheron's Call 2 and Earth & Beyond are cancelled on snap-decisions once it becomes apparent that the game is in a downward spiral (AC2 was actually cancelled right in the middle of an expansion development). Other games, like Mythica, Wish, and Ultima Online 2 are cancelled during development, after millions are already spent, when it becomes obvious that they will not yield an immediate profit.
EverQuest has a budget that is built on yesteryear's figures of a couple million bucks at most (expansions are undoubtedly getting funded for much, much less), but SOE is looking to competing with the big boys which means a $50M+ development budget at least.
The one silver lining for diehard EQ players is that SOE is quickly developing a reputation as the graveyard of MMOs -- it's the place where games go to die, more or less. Whether it's Matrix Online, or now, apparently, Vanguard, games are sold to wholesale control by the publishing giant which then comes up with schemes to keep them profitable. In the meantime, their gamers are driven away by poorer and weaker content. Zolina's post is a great example of how this is already beginning to happen to EverQuest.
EQ2's figures are not that positive, either, regrettably. All of the European PvP Servers (5 of them) are merging into a single super-server. How far off can U.S. server mergers be? (It's easy to forget that there was already one round of EQ2 server mergers, and three rounds of EQ1 server mergers).
All in all, it's getting tougher for gamers to choose where to invest their time if there isn't a prospect of a promising, flourishing world.
Comment Posted by: Loral on April 29, 2007 11:46 AM
Ghost of Zek asks: "How would you tell SOE in concrete terms what they should do to win back the hearts and wallets of all thos people they've burned over the years?"
I talked about this last night over dinner with my wife. I don't think my suggestions are much different from ones I've given in the past:
1. Add New Player Models for All Races.
2. Rebuild Plane of Knowledge into a central hub of adventure, commerce, and social interaction.
3. Focus on 30 minute to 60 minute adventures, including travel time, and test them thoroughly. Build 20 excellent instances instead of 60 ho-hum ones. Test the hell out of them and balance them around real non-raiders.
4. Re-introduce monster missions that show the history and current storyline of Everquest. Make more monster missions like the Nagafen and Thurgadin missions and less like the faerie and orc missions. Build epic monster missions instead of cute ones.
5. Narrow the gear gap between raiders and non-raiders. Gear from The Buried Sea is still not as powerful as Anguish gear from seven expansions past. Next expansion high-end group gear should be better than Demiplane of Blood. Worry more about getting players into your current expansions than about making previous expansions obsolete.
Those are my five suggestions. It's a great question. What would you do to improve Everquest?
Comment Posted by: Kaelon on April 29, 2007 12:09 PM
Great suggestions, Loral. My five suggestions:
1. 30-60 minute adventure content should be done int he style of Lost Dungeons of Norrath, updated for the latest scripting techniques (see Lord of Rings Online for an impressive example of what is done).
2. Eliminate the Bazaar; implement an Auction House commerce system to place the player economy into overdrive.
3. Redesign tradeskills to emphasize simplicity, accessibility, and mastery of trades. Add in stronger specialization tracks to encourage differentiation. Then, limit players to the number of tradeskills they can pursue at any given time.
4. Continue redesigning and relaunching older world content, without discarding hallmarks of EverQuest lore (such as the Newbie Log in the First Nektulos revamp). Focus the next expansion on a Faydwer revamp or an Erudin/Paineel revamp.
5. Redesign the User Interface emphasizing simplicity and accessibility.
Comment Posted by: Redcloud on April 29, 2007 03:46 PM
I'd love to see SOE rip the ideas of WoW, Vanguard and LOTRO off.
Among a few things:
Auction bid/sell house, sending results (success or sale) by mail like LOTRO
30 minutes Quests, lots of them, well tested. Collaborative questing, any quest should be shareable in a group to avoid a number of issues.
Complete revamp of graphics: let's face it, the comparison with this year's MMO is a killer. Models are one thing but the overall difference is huge.
I found LOTRO to be the closest of what I would have wanted EQ to be, in graphics and quest terms.
Comment Posted by: Skuz on April 29, 2007 06:42 PM
Make the 1-50 game of eq free to play (maybe with restrictions)
http://forums.station.sony.com/eq/posts/list.m?topic_id=110810
Lots of very good suggestions there.
Personally I think there is a lot that Everquest could do to reinvigorate itself, but it will be creative ideas such as this that enable it.
Comment Posted by: Sunshadow on April 29, 2007 06:52 PM
To revitalize EQ, you need to make the word come alive again. To do this you need 3 simple things.
1) Shrink the world. Atm the game is to bloody big there are nearly more zones than players on the servers.
2) Get rid of instances except for raids, they just make the world feel empty.
3) Hire some GM's just for EQ rather than farming them across multiple games.
Comment Posted by: sadone on April 29, 2007 08:10 PM
wow loral calling for new player models, aint you the guy that used to continually slap me and others down years ago when we asked for such, stating price too high, well the subscription figures were higher then, and probably remaking the model cost lower, so how exactly do you expect them to do it now ? when subscriptions are a lot lower.
for me eq died when they started to continually abandon contect, first then abandoned firona vie story arc, in favor of moden rasp and nedaria etc, then they abandoned that !!! anyone here know if nedaria alived or died ?? and came back to firona.
to say is it too late, is wrong, nothing is too late, its if they want too or not, they could make eq better than wow if they put the effort in, will they, shrug, very much doubt it, but i dont care i play wow now, even though i dont get as much character interaction there is still loads to take up my time, and my friends i talk to with msn, instead of in group waiting for a mob to be pulled, shrug.
Comment Posted by: Mozartz on April 29, 2007 09:11 PM
Some mentioned already that I would have included ( new player models ), but my five:
(1) Double experience advancement for levels 1 - 60
(2) Make all older content that is sub level 50, the same zone across all servers, but disengage trading, dropping etc so that you minimize cross economic contamination ( if that matters anymore))
(3) Make plat useful again by (a)a legitmate plat sink ( rez potions? makeable by clerics for ~250 with npc bought items? ) (b) Create sellable npc drops that aren't tied to tradeskills
(4) An aggressive marketing strategy which promotes EQ as being what it is (a) not WoW (b) challenging but not abusive
(6) The most radical idea and quite honestly Im not sure you could pull this off at this point: Make guilds (a) not able to have more members than 50 and then gear content accordingly and/or (b) make guilds have level restrictions such as 1-40, 41-55, 56-69. and 70+. For those guilds that are centered around levels less than 70, include an exp bonus when guilded.
Comment Posted by: Naladini on April 30, 2007 01:36 AM
"While other MMO companies might focus on a single title..."
Companies is the key word in that sentence, there aren't a lot of companies around making 1 MMO. Everyone may start with 1, but they never seem to stay there for long, especially if the first one is a success.
You're right about funds from EQ1 subsidizing other games (where else would the money have come from?), but in all honesty, isn't that just how business works? Is there a specific accounting of how much $$ blizzard pulls out of development to give to Vivendi and its massive debt load? Does it really matter if a game is receiving proper development attention?
Naturally, my final question there should really be the focus of debate regarding EQ1.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on April 30, 2007 01:07 PM
How would people feel about paying for new character models? Basically making them an expansion?
The bean-counters at SOE are all about return on investment. Expansions are great because they bring in money. Changes to the game only pay off if they cause people to change their behavior--subscribe when they wouldn't have otherwise. If the bean-counters thought new models would pay for themselves that way they'd have made them a long time ago.
So what if there were an expansion with little or nothing in it but new models? Make it separate from the regular six-month cycle of "real" expansions (since most of the devs wouldn't be involved anyway). They'd also probably include some sort of gimmick to drive sales. A level cap increase with no new content would be a bad idea, but that's the kind of thing they'd be looking for--something too good to pass up even if you don't care about the models.
I have no doubt that some people would react with outrage ("They should be free!"). But realistically that's the only way I see it happening. So if a lot of people would be willing to pay for a models-only expansion, I'd suggest communicating that to SOE.
Comment Posted by: wilhelm2451 on April 30, 2007 04:26 PM
I will be interested to see if, in the long term, the rise in price of Station Access cuts into the EQ population and, thus, profitability.
At $22, then $25 a month, I was okay keeping Station Access so I could play EQ2 and still go revisit EQ. But the latest jump to $30 crossed a barrier for me, as it would literally be cheaper just to have an EQ2 and an EQ account. Since I do not play enough EQ to justify paying full price for it, I now only pay for EQ2.
How many other "nostalgia" accounts will fall away because of this?
Comment Posted by: Ktok on April 30, 2007 06:56 PM
When SOE launches a server that stops at some point before PoP, even if it goes all the way to Luclin, I will be playing EQ1 again.
None of this progression junk either... just flat out turn off PoP and everything after it. *Then* I'd be interested again.
Until then, SOE isn't turning their back on EQ1, but they are helping to push a lot of their former fans to do just that. Turn away from the game and not look back.
Top heavy is only good for those of us with enough free time to enjoy it.
Comment Posted by: RosesAreRed on April 30, 2007 07:14 PM
No one plays a game for 8 years because they like the player models. New ones would be a bonus, but you may be surprised to hear that there are people who still prefer the pre-Luclin models and use them.
If the same artists who "redid" the old, unused cities and zones, (turning them into bland, uninteresting and difficult to navigate dead zones) were to work on new models, I can imagine the end product. Probably everyone would choose pre Luclin!
Comment Posted by: thecreamalsorises on April 30, 2007 08:23 PM
OMG, I check out Mobhunter today and see people having an intelligent, civilized discussion on a subject as controversial as SOE EOL? Now this is the Mobhunter I remember! I doubt if EQ will ever be competitive with WoW, however, there is much that SOE can do to make EQ a viable game again. As many others have stated, new player models, improved solo playability, and a renewed focus on quality control would help the game tremendously. Like many former players, I never felt that I abandoned EQ but rather that SOE abandoned me. I had so much time invested in this game that it really took gross incompetence on SOE's part to chase me away.
Comment Posted by: Loral on April 30, 2007 10:12 PM
Some interesting news in regards to the future release cycle of expansions for EQ:
http://eqplayers.station.sony.com/news_article.vm?id=50421
"Our next expansion will be released in November. This will give us more time to polish the game content and features. I am also happy to announce that November will be the month for all future expansion releases as well. "
DIscuss...
Comment Posted by: blahs on May 1, 2007 03:17 AM
From the Producer's Letter:
"Along with the normal meetings that we have every week, we also have two meetings each year to discuss the future plans for EverQuest and create goals based on community feedback and team desires. In our last meeting the mood was different. We had a renewed passion for the game and were proposing big, exciting ideas that we didn't want to compromise on due to dates."
1. You only have two meetings each year to discuss future plans and create goals based upon customer feedback?
2. The mood was different and you developed a renewed passion for the game, why? Is your staff finally starting to worry about their jobs? Was the organization run by boneheads up until recently?
3. It finally occurred to you not to compromise quality and content due to an over aggressive get-it-out-at-any-cost-and-fix-it-later-even-if-it-means-ripping-off-our-loyal-customers-with-substandard-expansions-that-is-unless-we-run-into-the-development-schedule-for-the-next-release-in-which-case-we-don't-bother-fixing-it-but-hey-our-customers-won't-leave-and-credibility-doesn't-buy-you-anything-in-this-business attitude?
Sorry, but too little too late and your promises don't mean squat any more. The train has left the station and you've squandered any goodwill there was. Not only will I avoid your products like the plague, but I'll warn others away as well and look forward to the day that you're all out of jobs and EQ is a distant memory. To clear up any possible confusion - I HATE YOU IDIOTS.
Comment Posted by: Skuz on May 1, 2007 07:44 AM
Seems to me EQ cannot win the hearts & minds of all, the "vocal minority" were rabid on eq "watering down" the game too fast by pumping out content too fast for them to keep up with it, everyone wants to be in the new zones they just paid for.
However with this announcement the "vocal minority" are once again up in arms now saying a 12month cycle is an indication of eq winding down & that we just get less content overall.
Personally I'm optimistic, I think that a 12 month cycle will give us a return of more "memorable" expansions such as Kunark & Velious were & if eq retains the current staffing & development levels, will also address quality much better, longer beta cycles etc.
The one thing that eq has to work on to survive though is in getting more new players into the game, old players whilst a huge "pool" are largely uninterested in returning because of the way eq works & it's mechanics.
It's simply put, very hard to start a new toon & hit max level & reasonable aa power, returning players are in the same boat, there are simply too few people around at anything under level 75 to facilitate grouping enough to catch up in reasonable time frames, currently it's powerlevel, or be powerlevelled or create a solo class.
That leaves classes that cannot solo right out in the cold.
This change is a good move for the health of the game, in terms of the bulk of it's playerbase, the bleeding edge guilds will no doubt feel somewhat stagnated, but they are a minority, adding some free zones or events those few can do will help.
I hope we get to see the following things in future.
1. large, well designed & high quality expansions that provide as much as is possible, solo, group, & raid content, with progressive scripted content for groups & raids in instances.
2. more imaginiative loot, loot has degraded in terms of the naming bearing little relation to the item or its lore, generally it has become dull & unimaginative it needs more fun factors.
3. new character models, & visibly different armors, more long but attainable quests like the Jonas Dagmire's skeletal hand augment, maybe for an actual item.
4. more "epic" loot, epic armor or jewellry.
5. a focus on altering the 1-75 game, primarily we need more players in the game to fill that 1-75 range, the tact of trying to win back old players simply wasn't effective enough. We need new players now, & in the meantime till new player gaining strategies are in place, then 1-75 game needs to speed up some, & have more solo progression.
Comment Posted by: Clint on May 1, 2007 08:59 PM
Just wanted to say I loved the discussion pieces in this thread, minimal bashing, creative idea making, pure theorizing. I think it's my new discusion home hehe.
You have to hand it to SOE, they may not do things perfectly, they may not have the best track record but by damn they stick to their guns or as long as they can if not eternally and as far as I've known them (since Playstation 1 ad EQ1 days) the have always been canny with their money.
To be perfectly honest, I can't see single subscription fees being the bulk of the revenue and must surely be receiving money from continuing brand growth like PS2 hardware and software sales. The question is, with so much money invested in PS3, will we see an impact if PS3 fails? I'm thinking likely.
The curious thing I've noticed is the Station Access, it gives you access to some pretty standout titles and you almost have to wonder how can this help revenue? But then I ask myself, I have station access because I can play all these games, but, do I? The short of it is no, but it's nice to have the facility. In EQ2 it gives you free adventure packs and extra slots, so theres another reason to have it. The point is, you are paying the price of 2 subscriptions just to HAVE the facility, not to USE it. Now thats what I call "smart".
If everyone on EQ2 (about 350,000 subscribers last I saw) had station access, that would be enough revenue to support the smaller playerbases of Matrix Online, EQOA, some of EQ1, some of Star Wars Galaxies, some of Vanguard and any others. Add the regular player base of each community and presto, a self supporting infrastructure based on the facility to play more than one game when most only have time for one during that entire month. In actual fact, when you look at it, have you ever tried to play both games at the same time (physically both games at once, not log one out and one in). That would be a minority certainly.
So either something else is supporting the great MMO structure, or the station access is. In either case, both decisions are smart and will ensure the life of SOE MMOs for a long time, unless PS3 bankrupt's the company...../shudder
Comment Posted by: wilhelm2451 on May 2, 2007 02:23 PM
Heh, Clint, I am not sure that the EQ2 user base would be happy with your plan. "If you all just paid more to play your game, you could support all of these other games!" might not be as effective a pitch as you wish.
And it might not work in any case. I actually asked on the SOE forums some time back about how Station Access money was divided. The response from Brenlo was:
"Without going into too much detail, yes the games you play while on Station Access and the amount of time you play them determine any financial benefit for a game."
So if I have Station Access and I do not play, say, SWG, SWG does not get any of my money. At least not automatically. I am sure some cut of the money goes into the general SOE account no matter what, and that could be used, but I am sure the same goes for a standard subscription as well.
As for the PlayStation stuff, that is actually a different business unit at Sony. So while SOE may make games for PlayStation (and may very well be pressured to do so) the sales of those games are all the benefit (or loss) that PlayStation brings in.
Comment Posted by: Loral on May 2, 2007 02:41 PM
"As for the PlayStation stuff, that is actually a different business unit at Sony. So while SOE may make games for PlayStation (and may very well be pressured to do so) the sales of those games are all the benefit (or loss) that PlayStation brings in."
I'm not sure that's true for Everquest Online Adventures.
Comment Posted by: Ghost of Zek on May 3, 2007 04:07 AM
As I opened the pandora's box by asking the question, I'll chip in my two cents worth of answer.
Preface: I'm no longer playing any SOE title. I was prior to quiting a 7.5 vet of EQ and a 2.0 year vet of EQII. I have been in both raiding and non-raiding guilds.
1) Some memebers of the current developer team need to be let loose. Those memebers with a long track record of distain to the user base (as documented in thier public writings on SOE and fan based forums). Simply put, they created a lot of bad blood, they need to go. There's no forgiving them as people memories are too long and the hate runs too deep.
2) SOE needs to fess up to the fact that most of their "new passion" for the game as recently announced is a mirror of the same bad PR job as done during the first players summit. If you lie, then lie again, no ones going to accept your being honest on the third attempt. It's the "cry wolf" syndrom. They might be honest this time, but there's no reason to believe them if they aren't willing to come clean, admit thier shame, and make reperations out of thier own pockets.
3) SOE needs to establish a very public ability to see the health of the game. They need to re-instate the ability to see what zones are up, and what the server populations are. Circa 1999 Verant. If the chat forums have one unique ID per user account and there are less than 200k forum accounts (not all of which represent paying customers anymore), and a forum account is created automatically for every subscriber who creates a game account even if they never log into the forums, then it's BS to say that there are over 350,000 active accounts on any SOE game. They need to be honest about the game population. People played EQ when there where less than 100k people total, they will continue to play. Decite on SOE's part regarding populations undermines peoples perception of the game.
4) SOE needs to put up a top 200 list of known bugs with a progress meter and completion ETA (both release to Test, and release to Live). This list needs to be updated daily. People need to know that SOE knows about the issues. They need to know SOE is actively working on those issues. And if SOE needs user feedback on an issue, then there needs to be a one stop place to check to find that out.
5) SOE needs to put up a two year plan. What design changes are in the works, what new content is in the works. This list should be updated no less than weekly. New minor content updates need to be listed and need to fold out into the Test and then Live servers on a routine basis; not less than once every two months. Fixes to drop rates, trade skills, broken quests, all of this needs to be viewable so that people can see at a glance that SOE is actively improving the quality of the game.
6) SOE needs to bring back dedicated server GM's. Server populations are about communities in an MMO. Communities need recognizable faces and names. A faceless/nameless person working from a call center in India is not a viable method of community building.
In short, SOE needs to stop thinking in terms of being an established Lion in a den of sheep. They need to go back to basics, as if this was day one, and they where trying to win a fresh new target audience with all the devotion that implies.
Comment Posted by: wilhelm2451 on May 3, 2007 11:06 AM
" "As for the PlayStation stuff, that is actually a different business unit at Sony. So while SOE may make games for PlayStation (and may very well be pressured to do so) the sales of those games are all the benefit (or loss) that PlayStation brings in."
I'm not sure that's true for Everquest Online Adventures. "
I suppose that "stuff" wasn't the term I should have used. Sales of actual PlayStation hardware is via Sony Computer Entertainment America, a distinct and separate business unit of Sony, which is based up here in Foster City, CA.
Sales of PlayStation and PSP hardware affect SOE primarily to the extent that it determines the size of the market for certain SOE products such as EQOA or Untold Legends. Other internal corporate incentives and requirements between business units may exist, but if I buy a PS2, PSP, or PS3, SOE does not get a penny of my money directly.
Of course, I am not acknowledged in any circles as an expert on the subject, so I do not claim absolute, final knowledge on the issue, just what I have read and retained about the two business units in the past.
Comment Posted by: Tolem on May 4, 2007 02:43 AM
Great article Loral; and I would have to say that I agree. There are some MMOS that have been active for a very long time, with minimal support, but active, none the less.
Comment Posted by: Redhenna on May 4, 2007 09:24 AM
A few initial comments based on other comments:
"How would you tell SOE in concrete terms what they should do to win back the hearts and wallets of all thos people they've burned over the years?"--You know, the funny thing is almost no one I know who has left EQ has left feeling 'burned' by SoE. Most left either due to burning out on EQ, or to try other games. I am sure some people left all bitter at SoE, but I don't think it is a significant number of people.
"What would you do to improve Everquest?"
1: Survey people leaving EQ, find out why they are leaving, and try to change things to limit people leaving.
2: Always ensure people have enough to do to stay interested in EQ. This relates to my number 1, since my guild lost about 10 people this year to retirement, almost all due to a lack of things to do to stay interested(admitedly, we are not average players, but it still shows a problem).
3: Always remember that gameplay > all. There will always be prettier games out there(and SoE has suggested that they want to continue having low system requirements), so a focus on gameplay is probably a better way to go.
4: Remember that fancy features almost never sell an expansion, content sells expansions, and keeps people interested.
5: EQ is, at it's heart, a progression based game, with players able to progress through experience(levels and AA's), gear, and skills(mostly tradeskills). All of these are important, and people need to be kept interested in their chosen method(s) of progression. Handle poorly any of these areas, and problems will arrise faster than just about any other area of EQ(look at itemization the last two expansions for a good example).
Now, onto the news of 1 expansions a year...There are really two questions that spring from this, ie 'Is it good for EQ as a whole?', and 'Is it good for me?'. They are related questions(If enough answer no to the second, it makes the answer to the first no), but truly seperate.
If done well, this could be a good thing overall for EQ. There are some real stumbling blocks to it working, and I have my doubts, but it could work. Each expansion has to be really good, as if you release a crap expansion(like PoR), well, a year is a long time to wait for a new one. It needs to have an absolute ton of things for players to do, at all levels of gameplay, since it has to keep players interested for a full year. It has to be very well polished. If SoE can pull all that off, I will be impressed. It's doable, but it's not going to be easy.
As to whether 1 expansion a year is good for me...well, I doubt it. I stopped playing in EQ around the first of the year, basically due to boredom, and a feeling that there was nothing to do outside raid. I had not done much but raid for the last month I did play. It took less than 3 months to get bored with a relatively large expansion...double the size of the expansion, and make them one year apart, and you now have 6 months of feeling bored. I could not make it three, no way I could make 6. Note, thse are simply personal impressions, and each person will have their own observations/impressions on how something affects them...and I fully admit to not being an 'average' gamer.
Comment Posted by: Brumms on May 5, 2007 05:12 AM
Bizarrely, I don't think EQ is suffering so much from need for an expansion as need for some consolidation.
The players that remain are mostly going to be loyal these days. The rate of decline must have almost leveled out by now, - the balance between eye-candy, content, and game play in my opinion has been really out of whack now since Gates, those that are going to leave, mostly seem to have already left, and a core population remains.
Adapt the EQ server structure to cope with 75% of the numbers remaining so that the servers seem fuller.
Implement in-game rewards for leveling multiple characters up on a single account, encouraging wider play at levels below the max.
Change the game play balance so that it is no longer necessary to box three accounts to achieve anything worthwhile in your 6 hours of evening play :/.
evolve existing zones not just with eye-candy but with new content or redesigned populations and quests - give people an excuse to go back and have some fun.
Ach that's enough. The route to improving the long term health of the game is obvious to almost everyone, it just needs a little less focus on short term cash-extraction from what's left of the player-base. Some consistency of vision from expansion cycle to expansion cycle would be useful too.
Comment Posted by: Lelldorianx on May 16, 2007 08:50 AM
I happened to find this article on google, luckily, when I typed "Is SOE abandoning EQ2 for Vanguard" I once was an EQ I player, and miss it dearly. I still have withdrawals from the great game; and being a post-PoP player (actually, right when it came out, I was 13 in Target saying to my dad: "I just want to try it, I won't get absorbed in it like those weird people" did I buy PoP, and get absorbed). I liked PoP, I hated everything after, as I did not understand most of it and could not keep up. I was forever stuck at a 48 level ranger, in 2004-2005 area.
""a focus on altering the 1-75 game, primarily we need more players in the game to fill that 1-75 range, the tact of trying to win back old players simply wasn't effective enough. We need new players now, & in the meantime till new player gaining strategies are in place, then 1-75 game needs to speed up some, & have more solo progression.""
Now,
1: What if they actually TRY to do something to influence CURRENT players of high level? Now, no I do not mean a new race. Do not go off on the cat-man, frog-man, lizard-man thing again. It gets flamed, and bombs because it is not worth it. Perhaps something along the lines of a new class, I don't know. But my point is what matters, try something to influence current players to go 1-75 area, and that will actually stop discouraging returning level 48s, or new players from TRYING to start.
2: NEW MODELS! It has been said 100 times, and I will make it 101. As much as we players who like the game for what it is/was/could be, new players are attracted to what - graphics and content that beats WoW. Personally, I am an avid activist at school AGAINST WoW, being 16, and surrounded by WoW players; I can at least stop some from going to it. I think new graphics are needed to attract new players. And I think it is sad but true, we need to stop with this EQ II crap, Vanguard crap, and focus it on EQ I which HAD a HUGE rep for being the first/best MMO of its kind. I feel saddened to know that they are trying to make new MMOs while their older and more successful one is dying slowly.
3: Stop killing yourselves! You just released 2 MMOs in a span that is unimaginable. What makes it worse? They are of the same genre. Perhaps, for example; if you had EQ2 release, and instead of Vanguard a futuristic game. But no, two of the same kind is just death to one of them. Naturally, it is the new one that is hated by old players. In this odd case, they make old players of EQII/I feel encouraged simply through doubt that the old games will croak to the new and shiny Vanguard.
4: We need to get SoE to notice this post, and I will try my best. I encourage all of you to get this on SoE's forums. The huge point is that they try to get current players to make a new character. Perhaps they should make a new server, that ENCOURAGES old players to flock to it like it spring is coming. It should offer certain things such as new content for lower levels, improved old content for lower levels, a new class, perhaps, PERHAPS, a new race. I don't want to go off on the should have/would have/ could have tangent, but I will. SoE SHOULD HAVE pumped EQ II dollars into EQ I, OR Vanguard dollars into EQ I. Am I correct saying that EQ I has as big or a bigger player base than EQ II? AND Vanguard, now maybe not combined, but it was once 1.8 million from what I recalled.
5: Bring us back SoE, please listen. Read this whole article and get an idea for what needs to happen THIS NOVEMBER.
Comment Posted by: Mee on May 27, 2007 04:30 PM
I have played EQ since it started after graduating from z-mud. Ah those early days looking at bards laid low just out of crushbone. Anyways. Sorry to say it but EQ is doa. Yep I have been screaming make at least till level 20 free. But the till 50 free is even better. Wanna get the crowds? Want cities and zones to be alive. I play LOTR now but if what I suggested were truly implemented I would consider coming back. Without it forget it. Nothing kills a MMORPG then LFG and there aren't any. PERIOD. Yes you name it I played it. Sony is stupid and will continue to loose subscribers. Why would they change now?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Email Mike at mike@mikeshea.net for more questions or comments.