Project 1999 - Sony sold off the SOE to another company no longer owns EQ

Project 1999 (/forums/index.php)

- Blue Server Chat (/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=17)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 86753o9 (Post 1768050)

Nothing new. PC games have been dumbing down, substituting eye candy for substance since the resurgence of the console platform. Hell the PC game itself is now a niche market.

What the fuck are you talking about lol. Consoles these days are garbage.

Here's a quick breakdown of your console games every single year:

Call of Duty
Madden
Call of Duty
Assassin's Creed

Go open Steam and browse the market. PC blows consoles so far out of the water its not even a comparison. The only reason console is even in the conversation is because they're being used these days for multimedia centers in living rooms so idiots can stream nextflix and youtube.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 86753o9 (Post 1768050)

Nothing new. PC games have been dumbing down, substituting eye candy for substance since the resurgence of the console platform. Hell the PC game itself is now a niche market.

So much bad information in this thread. PC gaming is the most lucrative platform by far. Your information isn't even biased, it's just flat out false.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcochi...c-already-won/

The PC market was over twice as big as the entire console market combined as of last year. And it's still growing. Console lost the war. Now it's up to developers to figure out what PC gamers actually want.

/facts

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirken (Post 1767408)

RIP EQNext

It looked terrible anyway tbh.

I would certainly contribute to a kickstarter of an Everquest overhaul if one ever happened. EQNext looked interesting and was eager to try it out and still might if it is released.

But I am here on P99 for a reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doors (Post 1768054)

What the fuck are you talking about lol. Consoles these days are garbage.

Haven't they always been? It's called mainstream accessibility and it's why PC games started going down hill back in the 90's as the companies shifted to a broader target demographic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adolphus (Post 1768064)

In recent years that's true, but I believe it's due in some part to PC game designers efforts to emulate console games. I'll use xcom as an example. That was a great game back in the day. The modern remake was a disappointment to fans of the original. Yes it was a commercial success and it had great eye candy, but it was seriously dumbed down to make it more "mainstream accessible". Thankfully Xenonauts was later released to satisfy the faithful.

Also that link you posted is about gaming hardware, in other words graphics cards. Here is a link regarding software sales, in other words games.
http://info300.net/lleu2/Market.html

http://info300.net/lleu2/market.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adolphus (Post 1768064)

PC gaming is the most lucrative platform by far. Your information isn't even biased, it's just flat out false.

Speaking as someone who works in the PC games industry; try telling the publishers that.

There's this thing called DRM - you might have heard of it - which was supposed to deter piracy. Publishers just won't stop whining about the 90% piracy rate (i.e. they estimate that they sell one copy for every ten installs) on PC and the fact that even the most impressive DRM sometimes gets cracked or circumvented even before the game's release. Compare this to console where there is still some piracy, but it's a minority.

Steam, along with clones like Origin and UPlay, has been our best defence - boxed PC games make about 30-50% profit for the publisher at best and any DRM is going to be intrusive, Steam is 70% at worst (though you're not really allowed to discuss the exact numbers) and its DRM is almost transparent - but the two most recent generations of console introduced digital downloads and piracy is still rampant even when looking at Steam games; some Steam games don't even use the encryption and run directly from the folder.

I once suggested that the answer was to make better games and rely on good faith rather than DRM (like CD Projekt RED does) and was told never to suggest that in front of the publisher or CEO...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adolphus (Post 1767975)

If there was even a chance that EQNext and Landmark would be profitable relative to their current investment (and future investment requirements), Sony would have kept SOE under it's umbrella.

Actually, if you know the history, SoE was cut loose previously. Sony wanted to focus 989 Studios on sports games for PlayStation, something which did not match the PC-only RPG Smedley was making.

Publishers do it all the time; when Eidos got bought, a whole load of studios went independent because Square Enix wanted to focus on a specific set of genres. It is not a sign that the games won't make a profit, just an admission that the publisher is not interested / knowledgeable when it comes to those games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiggles (Post 1767389)

I wonder if this will affect P99 we don't know how litigious these new IP holders are and even if P99 doesn't break any laws I doubt they can afford a drawn out legal battle.

http://kotaku.com/sony-sells-off-stu...1z1-1683267881

Dom, buddy, pal. The kingslayer? Really?
Cmon, more realistic, but stream again, we need quality.

1. Start up
2. Buy in
3. Sell out
4. Bro Down

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adolphus (Post 1767975)

I think EQNext is done. No parent company sells off a major division of the company when said division is in the middle of developing a flagship product - not unless something is very wrong. If there was even a chance that EQNext and Landmark would be profitable relative to their current investment (and future investment requirements), Sony would have kept SOE under it's umbrella.

So yeah . . . Sony no doubt saw the staggering low players numbers for Landmark and realized that neither game was going to generate a sufficient ROI to justify keeping the studio. I'd say that this sale is really a monument to Smedley's stupidity - the culmination of all his horrible decisions and direction over the years. If only they had used the template of classic Everquest; a subscription-only model, with updated graphics and better quests and mechanics . . . man, it would have worked wonders.

I disagree. I think Sony and the new owners of SOE realized, the dynamic nature of EQNext, which will be giving all of us a new vision of one of the most exciting and pioneering online games of all time, required some corporate right-sizing and a more nimble and agile management approach to take the Everquest franchise and SOE to the next level.

Sell off any salable assets, technology, and intellectual property and have the place lights out in 4 months.

Coffee is for closers, Smed.