@Elder No. I'm saying that the devs have stated that EQNext was cancelled because they couldn't make the game fun. They were already having that problem before the cutbacks and regime change... Landmark also wasn't as fun as they thought it would be - people hated the combat. The mobs were not particularly savvy pathing around destroyed voxels, etc. Cutbacks and layoffs didn't help resolve those issues. Nor did a regime change. So, yeah, cutbacks certainly influenced the cancellation, but that doesn't change the fact that the devs couldn't make the game fun.
"We set out to make something revolutionary. In the case of EverQuest Next, we accomplished incredible feats that astonished industry insiders. Unfortunately, as we put together the pieces, we found that it wasn’t fun. We know you have high standards when it comes to Norrath and we do too. In final review, we had to face the fact that EverQuest Next would not meet the expectations we – and all of you – have for the worlds of Norrath."
Okay, there must have been a communication error. I'm saying development was taking too long and the company scrapped it. To protect its name they made an excuse as to why it was being canceled. I know you just loooooooove to argue Dygz. But there's really no point, it's just an opinion that many people share.
Development was taking too long for several reasons - among them the fact that resources were focused on Landmark - and the only part of Landmark the devs could make fun was voxelmancy.
The Landmark AI sucked. Landmark combat sucked. Morale suffered because of that even before the cutbacks and regime change. That was told to me directly by the devs. Before and after the regime change. Just because many people share an opinion doesn't make it true.
But, in this case, we don't even disagree. If there had not been cutbacks and a regime change, the devs may have been given more time, sure. But, they weren't really even allowed to work on EQNext until after the regime change occurred and after the cutbacks, so they were hamstrung right out of the gate.
Also keep in mid the Storybricks perspective: "We fell in love with the EverQuest franchise and we wanted the best possible future for it. We knew Sony Online (300+ employees IIRC) was for sale so Storybricks (barely 10 people) tried to actually buy out the whole division.
We retained an investment banking firm as a proxy and they went directly to Sony Corporate bypassing the local executives. We would have been able to raise the necessary capital, and had interviewed new and existing management ready for a turnover.
Alas, it was not meant to be as the terms offered by Sony Japan were unacceptable to us and to our investors. It is my understanding that other buyers had the same reaction and, in the end, Columbus Nova got a completely different deal that the one we were offered, but by then our investor group had moved on.
Make no mistake the company needed cuts badly, and we would have cut and cut deeply. Possibly as deep as Columbus Nova did but maybe we would have cut more senior management and less game developers instead. It was our intention to try to acquire the 38 Studios assets and made them available to players in EQN. Moreover we would have probably changed the server infrastructure allowing people to run their own servers. It would not have been a very canonical EverQuest but we would have done the best to service our customers with the limited budget of an independent studio who wanted to punch above its weight.
We really did try our best. And our best was not enough."
Oh yeah, you sat down and had a chat with them, did you?
if you want to assume everything you see in media is the 100% truth that is fine by me. But you have no place attempting to correct someone on a topic that is completely up to speculation. Your opinion has no more premise than mine.
Please don't try and have the last word with this one. I obliterated you last time you decided to start an argument with me.
Yes. I did sit down and have a chat with the devs. Many times. You can find some of that online and some of it was in private. My info is directly from the horses mouths.
But, I'm not even sure what you could be arguing even if you wanted to argue... that EQNext was fun to play? That Landmark AI was revolutionary? That Landmark combat was fun?
You can have the last word if that makes you feel better, sure.
nice edit Dygz. You're missing the point entirely, my opinion, my theory is that everything they have said is a lie. How is quoting them going to help?
Also, you know they were using Landmark to build EQNext right? every bit of development they did in Landmark helped progress Next.
That's right... the only part of EQNext that actually existed was Landmark. So what part of Landmark gameplay was revolutionarily fun? The AI? The combat? What besides voxelmancy was fun?
i never said landmark was fun? I hated Landmark? are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? My point was you said landmark slowed down Next's development. Landmark WAS Next's development.
Oh, i understand you think because Landmark wasn't fun then Next wouldn't have been fun. And somehow in your twisted logic because they were building assets in Landmark that they have to be.... fun Assets?
Okay, assets are trees, rocks, and buildings. Every model you see is an asset. They were just using Landmark to build environments for Next. Landmark and next were going to be completely different games. Different combat, different AI. Ironically the only thing they were keeping from landmark was the one thing you said you liked!!!
Developing Landmark as its own game inherently slowed the development of EQNext.
EQNext was supposed to be developed in tandem with Landmark. Proto-Landmark was just the tools used to craft building, but its voxelmancy was fun enough that Dave decided to give the tools to the fans.
And then he decided to give the tools to the fans in the form of a lite MMO. And then as a kind of proto-type for EQNext - which meant that instead of working on EQNext, the EQNext devs had to place more and more focus on making Landmark functional and fun to play. They had to make the AI work with voxels - the AI didn't work very well with voxels. Then they had to make the combat work in Landmark - not just with the AI, but also for PvP... neither of which were fun.
And that brought a hit to morale because while Dave was eager for Landmark to be a hit, most of the devs really wanted to be working on EQNext.
So, yes, Landmark slowed down development on EQNext right out of the gate. Especially because Landmark became EQNext's development. And Landmark gameplay was intended to be a stripped down version of the EQNext gameplay.
For example, the Landmark combat was intended to be a lite version of the EQNext combat. Instead of the EQNext devs being able to focus on implementing the design of EQNext combat, they had to actually implement a similar, but different combat design for Landmark. And then, because that combat wasn't fun -especially the PvP combat- those devs had to spend all their time making Landmark combat fun instead of being able to work on developing the EQNext combat.
Instead of devs being able to focus on getting Storybricks AI to work for EQNext, they had to focus on getting Landmark AI to path around voxels.
Your theory that everything the devs said in public was a lie is pretty much on point. We at TheoryForge were told that privately by some of the devs before and after the regime change: EQNext was not beng developed in tandem with Landmark. Landmark was really all that existed for EQNext beyond the game design. Unless you want to include some of the buildings the voxelmancers created in the styles of EQNext races.
At some point, the devs would have to be able to say, "Okay, Landmark is squared off enough that we can place our primary focus on developing EQNext - generate the world, start working on stories and quests and rallying calls and getting Storybricks AI integrated into the NPCs and developing the classes and developing all of the spells and abilities according to the EQNext design." At some pont the EQNext devs would need to be able to focus on creating all the EQNext races that would never be seen in Landmark, like Ratonga and Iksar. That never really happened while Dave was around...and it was pretty much too late by the time Dave was gone.
Landmark WAS EQNext's development. And Landmark wasn't fun - other than the voxelmancy.
So....as far as I can tell, we're in agreement. You're the one who keeps indicating there is some argument even though you don't see, to be saying anything counter to what I've said.
You're the one that decided to undermine my opinion. The only reason you are now attempting to come to an agreement with me is that you would rather us both be right then you be wrong. You've done a complete flip of your previous opinions.
Heh heh, aren't you both kinda mostly in agreement @Elder?
You say it was cutbacks that caused while @Dygz elaborated further about why he feels its more than just cutbacks. I don't think he's trying to contradict you either.
Anyways, as entertaining as the digression was, lets get back to arguing over how the theoretical end game is going to be bad/good/fair/unfair instead.
My only concern as mentioned previously is that a very loud vocal minority might try to hijack or defame Ashes due to not conforming or providing stereotypical content (Lack of Endgame*) of the MMO industry expectations based on bad practices as a result of profit making.
At the end of the day, we will just have to play - it will either be fun or it won't be fun. EQNext supposedly got canceled because the devs determined it wasn't as fun to play as they ad originally expected.
If it's fun, people will try it and decide for themselves. Show; not tell.
It's true his opinion changed over time. But the original argument was that I believed the devs were lying to us. He said that was false and the argument eventually cascaded into an unrecognizable mess. I'll agree to diffuse the situation but I'll ask politely for Dygz to respect others opinions in the future.
At the top of this page I state that your assertion is true but does not negate my assertion. Check to see how long it took you to state anything about the devs lying. Which I also agree with.
I pretty much agreed with you the entire time. You were the one trying to disagree with me.
Comments
No. I'm saying that the devs have stated that EQNext was cancelled because they couldn't make the game fun. They were already having that problem before the cutbacks and regime change...
Landmark also wasn't as fun as they thought it would be - people hated the combat. The mobs were not particularly savvy pathing around destroyed voxels, etc.
Cutbacks and layoffs didn't help resolve those issues. Nor did a regime change.
So, yeah, cutbacks certainly influenced the cancellation, but that doesn't change the fact that the devs couldn't make the game fun.
"We set out to make something revolutionary. In the case of EverQuest Next, we accomplished incredible feats that astonished industry insiders. Unfortunately, as we put together the pieces, we found that it wasn’t fun. We know you have high standards when it comes to Norrath and we do too. In final review, we had to face the fact that EverQuest Next would not meet the expectations we – and all of you – have for the worlds of Norrath."
The Landmark AI sucked. Landmark combat sucked.
Morale suffered because of that even before the cutbacks and regime change.
That was told to me directly by the devs. Before and after the regime change.
Just because many people share an opinion doesn't make it true.
But, in this case, we don't even disagree.
If there had not been cutbacks and a regime change, the devs may have been given more time, sure. But, they weren't really even allowed to work on EQNext until after the regime change occurred and after the cutbacks, so they were hamstrung right out of the gate.
Also keep in mid the Storybricks perspective:
"We fell in love with the EverQuest franchise and we wanted the best possible future for it. We knew Sony Online (300+ employees IIRC) was for sale so Storybricks (barely 10 people) tried to actually buy out the whole division.
We retained an investment banking firm as a proxy and they went directly to Sony Corporate bypassing the local executives. We would have been able to raise the necessary capital, and had interviewed new and existing management ready for a turnover.
Alas, it was not meant to be as the terms offered by Sony Japan were unacceptable to us and to our investors. It is my understanding that other buyers had the same reaction and, in the end, Columbus Nova got a completely different deal that the one we were offered, but by then our investor group had moved on.
Make no mistake the company needed cuts badly, and we would have cut and cut deeply. Possibly as deep as Columbus Nova did but maybe we would have cut more senior management and less game developers instead. It was our intention to try to acquire the 38 Studios assets and made them available to players in EQN. Moreover we would have probably changed the server infrastructure allowing people to run their own servers. It would not have been a very canonical EverQuest but we would have done the best to service our customers with the limited budget of an independent studio who wanted to punch above its weight.
We really did try our best. And our best was not enough."
Oh yeah, you sat down and had a chat with them, did you?
if you want to assume everything you see in media is the 100% truth that is fine by me. But you have no place attempting to correct someone on a topic that is completely up to speculation. Your opinion has no more premise than mine.
Please don't try and have the last word with this one. I obliterated you last time you decided to start an argument with me.
You can find some of that online and some of it was in private.
My info is directly from the horses mouths.
But, I'm not even sure what you could be arguing even if you wanted to argue... that EQNext was fun to play? That Landmark AI was revolutionary? That Landmark combat was fun?
You can have the last word if that makes you feel better, sure.
Also, you know they were using Landmark to build EQNext right? every bit of development they did in Landmark helped progress Next.
So what part of Landmark gameplay was revolutionarily fun?
The AI? The combat? What besides voxelmancy was fun?
You have a theory based on what evidence?
Okay, assets are trees, rocks, and buildings. Every model you see is an asset. They were just using Landmark to build environments for Next. Landmark and next were going to be completely different games. Different combat, different AI. Ironically the only thing they were keeping from landmark was the one thing you said you liked!!!
EQNext was supposed to be developed in tandem with Landmark.
Proto-Landmark was just the tools used to craft building, but its voxelmancy was fun enough that Dave decided to give the tools to the fans.
And then he decided to give the tools to the fans in the form of a lite MMO.
And then as a kind of proto-type for EQNext - which meant that instead of working on EQNext, the EQNext devs had to place more and more focus on making Landmark functional and fun to play.
They had to make the AI work with voxels - the AI didn't work very well with voxels.
Then they had to make the combat work in Landmark - not just with the AI, but also for PvP... neither of which were fun.
And that brought a hit to morale because while Dave was eager for Landmark to be a hit, most of the devs really wanted to be working on EQNext.
So, yes, Landmark slowed down development on EQNext right out of the gate.
Especially because Landmark became EQNext's development.
And Landmark gameplay was intended to be a stripped down version of the EQNext gameplay.
For example, the Landmark combat was intended to be a lite version of the EQNext combat.
Instead of the EQNext devs being able to focus on implementing the design of EQNext combat, they had to actually implement a similar, but different combat design for Landmark. And then, because that combat wasn't fun -especially the PvP combat- those devs had to spend all their time making Landmark combat fun instead of being able to work on developing the EQNext combat.
Instead of devs being able to focus on getting Storybricks AI to work for EQNext, they had to focus on getting Landmark AI to path around voxels.
Your theory that everything the devs said in public was a lie is pretty much on point. We at TheoryForge were told that privately by some of the devs before and after the regime change: EQNext was not beng developed in tandem with Landmark. Landmark was really all that existed for EQNext beyond the game design.
Unless you want to include some of the buildings the voxelmancers created in the styles of EQNext races.
At some point, the devs would have to be able to say, "Okay, Landmark is squared off enough that we can place our primary focus on developing EQNext - generate the world, start working on stories and quests and rallying calls and getting Storybricks AI integrated into the NPCs and developing the classes and developing all of the spells and abilities according to the EQNext design."
At some pont the EQNext devs would need to be able to focus on creating all the EQNext races that would never be seen in Landmark, like Ratonga and Iksar.
That never really happened while Dave was around...and it was pretty much too late by the time Dave was gone.
Landmark WAS EQNext's development. And Landmark wasn't fun - other than the voxelmancy.
So....as far as I can tell, we're in agreement.
You're the one who keeps indicating there is some argument even though you don't see, to be saying anything counter to what I've said.
You say it was cutbacks that caused while @Dygz elaborated further about why he feels its more than just cutbacks. I don't think he's trying to contradict you either.
Anyways, as entertaining as the digression was, lets get back to arguing over how the theoretical end game is going to be bad/good/fair/unfair instead.
I was actually responding primarily to @Whocando's comment; not yours:
At the top of this page I state that your assertion is true but does not negate my assertion. Check to see how long it took you to state anything about the devs lying. Which I also agree with.
I pretty much agreed with you the entire time.
You were the one trying to disagree with me.