Original EQ Had IMMERSION

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On 2005-02-08, Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
> If someone were to come out with an MMOG that was a lot more like the
> original EQ, I'd switch over in a heartbeat, and play it, timesinks and
> all.
>

Hi, Vanguard.

/pine
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c72a46fe9d234e1989a1d@shawnews>,
42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>content they create ways to skip old content. Insteda of fixing buggy
>implementations they remove the feature wholesale. (e.g. boats)...

Here's how I think they should redo the boats:

Have a nice big zone like the abysmal sea boat. The zone ins to this
zone cycle through three states: 5 minutes they open to antonica, 10 minutes
they dont work at all (the boat's at sea) and 5 minutes they open to faydwer.
The dockside zone ins might have to be doors of some kind to avoid having
to change the graphics or they could actually have the boat sail up like
it used to...

They've already got the progamming for this: nexus spires are sort
of the same kind of timer...
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:27:28 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>Ding ding ding ding. We have a winner. Why *didn't* they add/modify
>content to them to keep them interesting as time went by?

Cuz they can't charge money for revamped zones. It's a tradeoff
between keeping the whole world vibrant or letting your zone designers
work on new zones that you can charge money for due to expansions.

.... we all know which one of those SOE will choose.

And honestly, when they have revamped old world zones it's been pretty
worthless. The only exception that comes to mind is Cazic Thule.
Rgds, Frank
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Frank E" <fakeaddress@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3CQKQuKV=BCBb2MDH7m87hTAq6wZ@4ax.com...

>
> And honestly, when they have revamped old world zones it's been pretty
> worthless. The only exception that comes to mind is Cazic Thule.

Revamped Veeshan's Peak was extremely nice.


--
Davian - Wood Elf Warrior on Guk
Talynne - Half Elf Rogue on Guk

Davian - Night Elf Rogue on Bloodhoof
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <3CQKQuKV=BCBb2MDH7m87hTAq6wZ@4ax.com>,
fakeaddress@hotmail.com says...
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:27:28 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >Ding ding ding ding. We have a winner. Why *didn't* they add/modify
> >content to them to keep them interesting as time went by?
>
> Cuz they can't charge money for revamped zones.

Bullshit. That is what the monthy fee is for. Raise it by $1.50, and
that will pay for an expansions worth of content every year, or easily
complete the equivalent of 1 - 2 zone revamps *per month*.

And we're talking complete revamp, new graphics, new zone geometry, new
mob designs, the whole baliwack.

For a mere 40c per month, there would be no trouble reviewing
itemization, spawn rates, adding/updating quests, events, changing mobs,
etc etc etc.

> It's a tradeoff
> between keeping the whole world vibrant or letting your zone designers
> work on new zones that you can charge money for due to expansions.

Do both hire more designers.

>
> ... we all know which one of those SOE will choose.

Sure, but you only gave them two choices. This rather reminds me of
those surveys that give you two options, agree or strongly agree.

> And honestly, when they have revamped old world zones it's been pretty
> worthless. The only exception that comes to mind is Cazic Thule.

And that honestly has nothing to do with anything. There is no inherent
reason a zone revamp need be any less worthwhile than an expansion zone.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Actually, I believe the primary reason for expansions was to have a
physical box to put on store shelves and generate new customers. It
also makes EQ look vibrant and prospering if new expansions are still
being developed, rather than it being "that old game that came out 5
years ago".

There are fluff games that are fun and fairly forgettable, and there
are challenging games that can often be frustrating, yet still provide
more exciting moments than the fluff games. Early EQ had more of the
latter, but I agree that failing to keep the game vibrant forced the
developers to instead eliminate frustrations in order to keep people
interested.

EQ, for better or worse, raised my standards for MMO games to the
extent that none of the current crop can meet them. Ironically, much of
that was a result of what EQ didn't do, as much as what it did do.

__________________________________________________________
Submitted by: Gauche
This message was submitted through the Erollisi Marr Forum
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:05:49 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>In article <3CQKQuKV=BCBb2MDH7m87hTAq6wZ@4ax.com>,
>fakeaddress@hotmail.com says...
>> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:27:28 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Ding ding ding ding. We have a winner. Why *didn't* they add/modify
>> >content to them to keep them interesting as time went by?
>>
>> Cuz they can't charge money for revamped zones.
>
>Bullshit. That is what the monthy fee is for. Raise it by $1.50, and
>that will pay for an expansions worth of content every year, or easily
>complete the equivalent of 1 - 2 zone revamps *per month*.
>
>And we're talking complete revamp, new graphics, new zone geometry, new
>mob designs, the whole baliwack.
>
>For a mere 40c per month, there would be no trouble reviewing
>itemization, spawn rates, adding/updating quests, events, changing mobs,
>etc etc etc.
>
>> It's a tradeoff
>> between keeping the whole world vibrant or letting your zone designers
>> work on new zones that you can charge money for due to expansions.
>
>Do both hire more designers.
>
>>
>> ... we all know which one of those SOE will choose.
>
>Sure, but you only gave them two choices. This rather reminds me of
>those surveys that give you two options, agree or strongly agree.
>
>> And honestly, when they have revamped old world zones it's been pretty
>> worthless. The only exception that comes to mind is Cazic Thule.
>
>And that honestly has nothing to do with anything. There is no inherent
>reason a zone revamp need be any less worthwhile than an expansion zone.
>

I have no intention of trying to defend 'why' SOE does something, just
trying to point out why I think they do things the way they do.

Rgds, Frank
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <xl0LQp=ILH7lI1GAydDI8paE82qB@4ax.com>,
fakeaddress@hotmail.com says...
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:05:49 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> I have no intention of trying to defend 'why' SOE does something, just
> trying to point out why I think they do things the way they do.

Ok. But your criticism fails on both points: First they -are- charging
us a monthly fee so they have a revenue model to bill us for gradual
content updates. (And it would be good for the long term survival of the
game to do so.)

And 2nd its ridiculous to criticize the idea of zone revamps just
because sony has done a lousy job of it. There is *no* reason whatsoever
that a zone revamp can't be as good as a new expansion zone. (And don't
bother arguing that if the zone revamps were so good nobody would buy
expansions because 1) that isn't true, and 2) there are trivial ways of
tying the zone revamps to new content so that you need the latest
expansion anyway to really benefit from them. (And we all know sony
isn't above doing that.)
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <Gauche.1k8esy@erollisimarr-dot-com-forum.com>,
Gauche.1k8esy@erollisimarr-dot-com-forum.com says...
>
> Actually, I believe the primary reason for expansions was to have a
> physical box to put on store shelves and generate new customers. It
> also makes EQ look vibrant and prospering if new expansions are still
> being developed, rather than it being "that old game that came out 5
> years ago".

True. But that doesn't really have a bearing on their failure to
revitalize and revamp existing content. I agree they may have desired
needed 'expansions' for marketability.

But that doesn't mean they can't do both.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Why *didn't* they add/modify
> content to them to keep them interesting as time went by?

Because selling new expansions was more profitable than updating old
content. It was simple greed.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <420bf40d$0$21650$a1866201@visi.com>, johndoe@example.com
says...
> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> > Why *didn't* they add/modify
> > content to them to keep them interesting as time went by?
>
> Because selling new expansions was more profitable than updating old
> content. It was simple greed.

Red herring argument, and the 3rd time someones said it. 8/

They have a revenue model in place to support updating old content: your
subscription fees. If they deemed they needed another 50c or $1.00 per
month to make revamping zones profitable they could easily have done so.

And most importantly they don't have to stop generating new profitable
expansions. Its not like they had to choose between the two. They could
have had their cake and eaten it too.

If your theory is simple greed it falls short. Had they been greedy
enough they would have taken the opportunity to build 'profitable' zone
revamps into the subscription fee and raise the price accordingly.

Some time ago they jacked the price up 23% from 9.95 to 12.95 in a fit
of unmitigated raw greed. They could easily have made it 13.95 and
generated enough revenue from that extra buck to *profitably* revamp a
zone every month thereafter. In fact a breif analysis indicates that it
would be *more* profitable than doing an expansion at that price!! Plus
it would have been good PR at the time too, as the playerbase would have
seen at least *some* return value on the jacked up price.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

johndoe@example.com wrote in news:420bf40d$0$21650$a1866201@visi.com:

> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Why *didn't* they add/modify content to them to keep them interesting
>> as time went by?
>
> Because selling new expansions was more profitable than updating old
> content. It was simple greed.

Damned greedy businesses trying to make money...

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 24 Dwarven Mystic, 21 Sage
Aviv, 12 Gnome Brawler, 19 Craftsman
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> > Why *didn't* they add/modify
>> > content to them to keep them interesting as time went by?
>>
>> Because selling new expansions was more profitable than updating old
>> content. It was simple greed.
>
> Red herring argument, and the 3rd time someones said it. 8/

It's a perfectly valid theory, and rather annoying you insist it can't
possibly be true.

> They have a revenue model in place to support updating old content: your
> subscription fees. If they deemed they needed another 50c or $1.00 per
> month to make revamping zones profitable they could easily have done so.

The marketing department may have decided EQ1 would sell better with a
lower monthly fee (i.e., without "content upgrade" costs built in),
and instead, charge for expansions.

> And most importantly they don't have to stop generating new profitable
> expansions. Its not like they had to choose between the two. They could
> have had their cake and eaten it too.

They may have decided that higher monthly fees may have discouraged
some non-trivial number of subscriptions.

> If your theory is simple greed it falls short. Had they been greedy
> enough they would have taken the opportunity to build 'profitable' zone
> revamps into the subscription fee and raise the price accordingly.

You're not thinking things through. The greed theory is a perfectly
viable explanation.

> Some time ago they jacked the price up 23% from 9.95 to 12.95 in a fit
> of unmitigated raw greed. They could easily have made it 13.95 and
> generated enough revenue from that extra buck to *profitably* revamp a
> zone every month thereafter. In fact a breif analysis indicates that it
> would be *more* profitable than doing an expansion at that price!! Plus
> it would have been good PR at the time too, as the playerbase would have
> seen at least *some* return value on the jacked up price.

They raised the price to match what other MMORPGs demonstrated could
be charged. An extra buck a month wouldn't cover the expansion costs
most subscribers probably paid.

In the end, greed is a perfectly valid explanation, whether or not you
choose to accept it.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> Why *didn't* they add/modify content to them to keep them interesting
>>> as time went by?
>>
>> Because selling new expansions was more profitable than updating old
>> content. It was simple greed.
>
> Damned greedy businesses trying to make money...

I didn't say it was "evil greed" or "bad greed", just "greed". I
don't appreciate you trying to suggest otherwise.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

johndoe@example.com wrote in news:420d0e3d$0$21650$a1866201@visi.com:

> Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>> Why *didn't* they add/modify content to them to keep them interesting
>>>> as time went by?
>>>
>>> Because selling new expansions was more profitable than updating old
>>> content. It was simple greed.
>>
>> Damned greedy businesses trying to make money...
>
> I didn't say it was "evil greed" or "bad greed", just "greed". I
> don't appreciate you trying to suggest otherwise.
>

Greed has a negative connotation, it generally means excessive or
reprehensible acquisitiveness. If that is not what you meant, perhaps you
should consider a different choice of words.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 24 Dwarven Mystic, 22 Sage
Aviv, 12 Gnome Brawler, 19 Craftsman
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>> I didn't say it was "evil greed" or "bad greed", just "greed". I
>> don't appreciate you trying to suggest otherwise.
>
> Greed has a negative connotation, it generally means excessive or
> reprehensible acquisitiveness. If that is not what you meant, perhaps you
> should consider a different choice of words.

The word fits. Tough luck for you if you don't like my choice of
words.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On 12 Feb 2005 03:22:11 GMT in <420d7663$0$29518$a1866201@visi.com>,
johndoe@example.com graced the world with this thought:

>Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> I didn't say it was "evil greed" or "bad greed", just "greed". I
>>> don't appreciate you trying to suggest otherwise.
>>
>> Greed has a negative connotation, it generally means excessive or
>> reprehensible acquisitiveness. If that is not what you meant, perhaps you
>> should consider a different choice of words.
>
>The word fits. Tough luck for you if you don't like my choice of
>words.

well, actually, too bad for you for reaffirming the fact that you're
apparently an ignorant <and> illiterate idiot.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On 11 Feb 2005 14:50:13 GMT, Graeme Faelban
<RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:

>Damned greedy businesses trying to make money...

Damn stupid businesses that can't see more than 6 months in the
future! 😛

Rgds, Frank
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:28:18 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>In article <xl0LQp=ILH7lI1GAydDI8paE82qB@4ax.com>,
>fakeaddress@hotmail.com says...
>> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:05:49 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have no intention of trying to defend 'why' SOE does something, just
>> trying to point out why I think they do things the way they do.
>
>Ok. But your criticism fails on both points: First they -are- charging
>us a monthly fee so they have a revenue model to bill us for gradual
>content updates. (And it would be good for the long term survival of the
>game to do so.)

Irrelevant. If they don't think that revamping old zones will help
them increase profit, they won't do it. How much they charge a month
doesn't matter. At some point, they calculated just how much they can
charge to maximize profit and I doubt that revamping zones entered
into that equation.

For zone revamps to make sense from their perspective, someone would
have to make the decision that they can justify the short term drop in
profits in exchange for long term gains. That isn't gonna happen with
SOE, they've proved over and over with the way they shovel expansions
out the door.

Rgds, Frank
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

bizbee <tuberoo@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>The word fits. Tough luck for you if you don't like my choice of
>>words.
>
> well, actually, too bad for you for reaffirming the fact that you're
> apparently an ignorant <and> illiterate idiot.

Congratulations, bizbee. You managed a post without your usual
childish string of profanities. Mark the date on your calendar!

Too bad you've decided to continue your trend of pointless insults and
sweeping generalizations, as well as adding nothing useful to the
conversation.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

johndoe@example.com wrote in news:420d7663$0$29518$a1866201@visi.com:

> Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> I didn't say it was "evil greed" or "bad greed", just "greed". I
>>> don't appreciate you trying to suggest otherwise.
>>
>> Greed has a negative connotation, it generally means excessive or
>> reprehensible acquisitiveness. If that is not what you meant,
>> perhaps you should consider a different choice of words.
>
> The word fits. Tough luck for you if you don't like my choice of
> words.
>

Lol, I don't mind the choice at all, but, if you did not intend a negative
connotation, then you chose the wrong word to get your idea across.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 24 Dwarven Mystic, 22 Sage
Aviv, 12 Gnome Brawler, 21 Craftsman
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

<RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
> johndoe@example.com wrote in news:420d7663$0$29518$a1866201@visi.com:
>
> > Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
> >>> I didn't say it was "evil greed" or "bad greed", just "greed". I
> >>> don't appreciate you trying to suggest otherwise.
> >>
> >> Greed has a negative connotation, it generally means excessive or
> >> reprehensible acquisitiveness. If that is not what you meant,
> >> perhaps you should consider a different choice of words.
> >
> > The word fits. Tough luck for you if you don't like my choice of
> > words.
> >
>
> Lol, I don't mind the choice at all, but, if you did not intend a negative
> connotation, then you chose the wrong word to get your idea across.

The only reason "greed" has a negative connotation is because the concept
behind the word has been given a negative connotation (ironically, by greedy
people). I have yet to meet a non-greedy person. I'm pretty sure they
simply don't exist.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in
news:slrnd11j38.1p8.faned@wyld.qx.net:

> <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>> johndoe@example.com wrote in news:420d7663$0$29518$a1866201@visi.com:
>>
>> > Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >>> I didn't say it was "evil greed" or "bad greed", just "greed". I
>> >>> don't appreciate you trying to suggest otherwise.
>> >>
>> >> Greed has a negative connotation, it generally means excessive or
>> >> reprehensible acquisitiveness. If that is not what you meant,
>> >> perhaps you should consider a different choice of words.
>> >
>> > The word fits. Tough luck for you if you don't like my choice of
>> > words.
>> >
>>
>> Lol, I don't mind the choice at all, but, if you did not intend a
>> negative connotation, then you chose the wrong word to get your idea
>> across.
>
> The only reason "greed" has a negative connotation is because the
> concept behind the word has been given a negative connotation
> (ironically, by greedy people). I have yet to meet a non-greedy
> person. I'm pretty sure they simply don't exist.
>

Regardless of the reason for the negative connotation, it is there. I
had learned it as a word that means excessive desire to collect whatever.
Meaning beyond the norm. I recently double checked in some dictionaries,
and they all appear to agree with how I learned the word.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 24 Dwarven Mystic, 22 Sage
Aviv, 12 Gnome Brawler, 21 Craftsman
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <DOkQQo1WhWc=cZUVMRuGvaigaq9X@4ax.com>,
fakeaddress@hotmail.com says...
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:28:18 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <xl0LQp=ILH7lI1GAydDI8paE82qB@4ax.com>,
> >fakeaddress@hotmail.com says...
> >> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:05:49 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I have no intention of trying to defend 'why' SOE does something, just
> >> trying to point out why I think they do things the way they do.
> >
> >Ok. But your criticism fails on both points: First they -are- charging
> >us a monthly fee so they have a revenue model to bill us for gradual
> >content updates. (And it would be good for the long term survival of the
> >game to do so.)
>
> Irrelevant. If they don't think that revamping old zones will help
> them increase profit, they won't do it. How much they charge a month
> doesn't matter. At some point, they calculated just how much they can
> charge to maximize profit and I doubt that revamping zones entered
> into that equation.

Given that a buck a month increase, for continuous zone revamps adds
value to the product, and is more profitable than an exapansion it makes
a lot of sense to do it. They can't really push more expansions on us
any faster without meeting ever higher resistance... so this is a new
way of getting in our pockets.

> For zone revamps to make sense from their perspective, someone would
> have to make the decision that they can justify the short term drop in
> profits in exchange for long term gains.

What short term drop in profits? They up it by a buck and start doing
revamps. Profits go up. How many people do you think will cancel their
account over a dollar/month for revamps?

And bear in mind that they raised it $3 last time, with no value add to
us at all.

> That isn't gonna happen with
> SOE, they've proved over and over with the way they shovel expansions
> out the door.

And this effectively lets them squeeze one more expansions worth of
content out per year, with 100% buy in.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Frank E <fakeaddress@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:HewQQmxnPdcu1Z8vgs+gFhEjLtYC@4ax.com:

> On 11 Feb 2005 14:50:13 GMT, Graeme Faelban
> <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>Damned greedy businesses trying to make money...
>
> Damn stupid businesses that can't see more than 6 months in the
> future! 😛

Heh, it's the market that drives the business. It's not like most quasi-
burned-out EQ old-timers want to revisit the old content, new look or not.
That would have been interesting for about 10 minutes, I would wager.
Besides, then the gripe would have been something along the lines of, "I
can't believe they slap some makeup and a new dress on the same old zones
and call it an update!"

I'm all in favor of revamping the old zones, but not at the expense of new
content.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom