There can only be one? EQ1 and EQ2

[eldaec]

Yes, but.  EQ mobs are the most ridiculously monotonous group of things

Not quite - the most monotonous group of things are daoc xp mobs.

They barely even use exciting concepts such as 'mobs with a spell'. And cooperative support mobs with heals or mez are right out.

That said I obviously agree that ordinary CoH mobs (generally coming as they do in proper ability-balanced groups) are way more interesting than ordinary EQ mobs, or just about any other MMOGs mobs.

[Alluvian]

UO, AC, AC2, AO, DAOC, EQ all have about the same level of AI.  Hell, I probably put EQ near the top.  Their aggro code was advanced enough in that a runner would bring his friends, and there were a few categories of mobs, mobs that flee, mobs that don't, mobs that aggro based on aggro list or undead who only aggro on nearest target.  So there was SOME variation, but very little.  Others will note minor differences between mobs in their own favorite 'classic' mmogs, but they are all in the same ballpark of 'shitty' AI.

Comparing EQ to CoH is pretty sad.  If CoH DIDN'T have better AI it would be pathetic 6 or so years later.  Hell, and in that regard a runner in CoH won't even alert his friends.  So in one way at least EQ has better AI.  Overall CoH is better though, mainly in pathing and knowing what their optimal range is.

[Sable Blaze]

Well, considering the origin of many mobs in CoH, they probably couldn't care less if one of their own "peers" just got handed his nether-regions on a silver-chased platter.

Or, they might take the view that if that hero just obliterated a dozen or so of his pals, maybe running to help the one that got away might not be such a hot idea.

Or, maybe he's whacked out of his virtual skull on superdyne and can't be bothered with thinking at all (not confined to mobs, from my own experiences on pickup TFs...).

More seriously,  I think CoH delivers pretty well on mob behavior. There are a few puzzlers, but then again, there are a lot of puzzlers when you look at those folks whose pickup group you just joined. Sooooo, who's to say?

[Alluvian]

There are a few puzzlers, but then again, there are a lot of puzzlers when you look at those folks whose pickup group you just joined. Sooooo, who's to say?

[paranoid]
Are you suggesting that CoH is actually a single player game and the other 'players' are just intentionally poor AI?  I think you are on to something...  Watch your back.
[/paranoid]

[El Gallo]

ACs AI was much worse than EQ's.  At least when I played, the alpha and the omega of the AI was "run in a straight line towards the target" which led to millions of poor olthoi getting slaughtered as they ran against walls in the vain hope of warping through to the other side.

As for the subject of the thread, EQ will not last forever.  At some point, the game will look dated enough that it won't replace its retirees with new players.  Also, it appears that, for the first time in its history, EQ will have legitimate competition in the English-speaking market.  Might as well take advantage of the brand name while it has value.

[jpark]

No, SOE will not make any incentives for players to switch to EQ2.  That would frankly be stupid of them and they have already said their goal is to offer incentives for people to play BOTH games concurrently.  That is where the money is.

I agree that would be the best situation financially.  We might do our own focus group right now and ask posters here if they feel there is sufficient differentiation between EQ1 and EQ2 they would subscribe to both games.  In my case I could not see subbing to two MMORPGS of the same genre by the same company.  Maybe I could see CoH + EQ2 but not EQ1+ EQ2.

This of course is speculative.  You may be working with an assumption, that many do seem to share and could be correct:

That EQ2 will expand the EQ franchise without cannabilizing existing users of EQ1.

I don't see this - independent of whether I actually think EQ2 will successfully attract former EQ players (putting aside the SOE market message) the products will be too similar, and SOE runs the risk of dividing is existing subscription base among two games - which is not cost effective.

In my understanding, your view works if it turns out to be true:

1.  EQ2 is entirely different from EQ1 (not better, but different)
2.  EQ2 will bring new users into the EQ franchise
3.  Users will sub to both EQ1 and EQ2

Number 1 is the clincher.  It is easy to see that EQ2 might be better then EQ1.  In that case existing users could be divided between the two titles without subbing to Both.  It is only if EQ2 is a fundamentally different play experience than EQ1 - not better - can the co-existence of these two titles work without cannabilizing each other's market share in a zero sum game.

[Alluvian]

We might do our own focus group right now and ask posters here if they feel there is sufficient differentiation between EQ1 and EQ2 they would subscribe to both games.  In my case I could not see subbing to two MMORPGS of the same genre by the same company.  Maybe I could see CoH + EQ2 but not EQ1+ EQ2.

The cart is WAY ahead of the horse here.  Maybe 6 months after the release of EQ2 we could properly do a focus group poll, but before release of the game and before anyone here (except a VERY few) are even in beta?  Hardly.

In my understanding, your view works if it turns out to be true:

1.  EQ2 is entirely different from EQ1 (not better, but different)
2.  EQ2 will bring new users into the EQ franchise
3.  Users will sub to both EQ1 and EQ2

Number 1 is the clincher.  It is easy to see that EQ2 might be better then EQ1.  In that case existing users could be divided between the two titles without subbing to Both.  It is only if EQ2 is a fundamentally different play experience than EQ1 - not better - can the co-existence of these two titles work without cannabilizing each other's market share in a zero sum game.

Number 1 is what EQ2 has been meant to be from the onset.  It is practically every other word out of the devs and PR mouth.  So there is no question as to the INTENT of the game.  The reality has yet to be seen.  Until then it is just speculation.  I get the feeling it will resemble a more in depth FFXI more than EQ, but that is just from what little I know about the games.  And that is very little.

The point is that in my opinion it certainly COULD succeed on all levels.  Whether it does or not is the question we ask of all unreleased games.

[HaemishM]

It's immaterial whether or not EQ2 will replace EQ1. With the combined subscription plans, an EQ2 user will be the same as an EQ1 user. I would be surprised if SOE wants all that many unique to EQ2 subscriptions. If you think trying to figure out subscription numbers on EQ1 is hard NOW, try to figure it out when there are unique to EQ2 subscribers, unique to EQ1 subscribers, and shared subscribers.

As for EQ's gameplay, it was most fun when the holy trinity couldn't be brought together for normal exp. groups. However, those were few and far between, mainly because even intelligent people who should otherwise know better got completely co-opted by the mantra of "You cannot hunt without warrior-cleric-enchanter." I had people in my guild complain all the time that they couldn't find groups. I'd look at the "who's online" thing when these complainers were on, and there'd be 3 or 4 people needing groups or out in pickup groups. The guild's few enchanters and clerics ALWAYS had groups, but they were usually the same groups of people, all of whom built off the holy trinity mindset. These other groupless folks who were complaining were completely unwilling to form a group that didn't have the trinity because they didn't know how to play any other way. That fucking mindset went a long way towards ruining the game of EQ.

[jpark]

Number 1 is what EQ2 has been meant to be from the onset.  It is practically every other word out of the devs and PR mouth. .

No doubt.  You believe this message but I do not.  You may be right - SOE may be right.  Time will tell.

The point is that in my opinion it certainly COULD succeed on all levels.  Whether it does or not is the question we ask of all unreleased games.

Agreed.  Spirit of speculation :)

Haemish - Agreed on subscription numbers and confusion.  But while less tangible, we can look at advertising efforts and continued support.  I predict advertising and development initiatives to facilitate the move of veterens from EQ1 to EQ2.  Agreed sub numbers may be a poor indicator now.

In summary:

Costs due to lost subs by folks who will not move to EQ2 < the profit gain in actively supporting/advertising one MMORPG (EQ2)

This is why I do not believe SOE message.  This is why even if I am right, I would still expect SOE market message today to remain unchanged.  EQ users are going to be stealth nerfed.

[kaid]

The alternative to either them being seperate or merging people over to eq2 is the gold pass thing. Why bother merging users when you can charge them more and give them access to both. It helps bloat their sales speak and frankly they know that people only have so much time for playing a mmrpg so if you buy the multiple pass thing its not like you will be using up more bandwith.


Doing this allows them to put marginal games like planetside and report HUGE subscribers which in turn can GET subscribers as folks tend to be sheep.

kaid

[Alluvian]

Number 1 is what EQ2 has been meant to be from the onset.  It is practically every other word out of the devs and PR mouth. .

No doubt.  You believe this message but I do not.  You may be right - SOE may be right.  Time will tell.

In what way do you not believe it?  I believe the PR monkeys really think that is what is being made.  I believe the devs really think that is what they are making.  I can easily see the result showing that the devs are out of touch.  It is all in the motive I guess.  If/when EQ2 comes out too much like EQ1 I will see that as a mistake by the EQ2 team, and a miscalculation/stupid mistake of the PR guys.

Would you see it as the planned result of EQ2?

We might still disagree with this after the release actually, heh.

Regarding future advertising, I believe the SMART move would be to start pegging BRAND over PRODUCT.  Advertise Everquest.  Not EQLive, or eq2 or EQOA or Champions of Norrath, but more ads on the brand, advertising multiple products.

I would hope they are smart enough to advertise their uniqueness here by advertising the Gold Pass itself.  WoW can't do that.  They can't offer 3 mmogs for just a little over the price of one.  Advertise EQ, EQ2, Planetside all at once.  Since that is truly what they want to sell.  Then again, maybe they are not smart enough for that.  I would hope so.

They will need some fullpage EQ2 ads though to start with for sure.  Just if they are smart they take out another ad in teh same magazine showing off the gold pass.

EQ does not need advertising.  Who the heck is drawn in by EQ advertising these days?  You have pretty much played the game or you are not going to at this point I believe.  Expansions will still be advertised obviously.

[jpark]

In what way do you not believe it?  I believe the PR monkeys really think that is what is being made.  I believe the devs really think that is what they are making.  I can easily see the result showing that the devs are out of touch.  It is all in the motive I guess.  If/when EQ2 comes out too much like EQ1 I will see that as a mistake by the EQ2 team, and a miscalculation/stupid mistake of the PR guys.

Would you see it as the planned result of EQ2?

We might still disagree with this after the release actually, heh.

Let's keep in mind our fundamental difference: I believe that try as they might - SOE can improve upon EQ1 but cannot realistically offer a completely different gaming experience that could co-exist along with EQ2.   Assuming for the moment I am right my speculation behind this is...

This unadulterated speculation, and certainly no doubt others here, perhaps yourself, know better than I:

EQ1 big benefit is the monumental investment of the current player base - or "switching cost" in marketing parlance.  A great product benefit not to be squandered.

On the other hand, EQ1 is showing its age, and is susceptible to competition.  SOE, imo, knows it needs to be updated from the core to survive.  Problem is (I am not a programmer) that such a massive update to ensure the longevity of EQ is not possible - the upgrade is too big to undertake.  Solution?  A new product must be made instead, free from the core problems of EQ.  That is EQ2.

In this scenario - EQ1 will be encouraged to migrate to EQ2 (for reasons we talked about above).  However, SOE cannot come out and say this without inflaming the community.  EQ2 is positioned as a different product to capture a different market segment.  

In reality, EQ2 is the upgrade EQ1 needs to retain its massive player base into the future.  EQ2 is not a play for a new market segment, but a longterm effort to protect the current revenue base EQ1 by providing the massive update necessary that could only be achieved in a new product (yet another difference between our views Alluvian).  

Further, my impression is that EQ2 development took longer than expected.  This required updates to EQ1 that despite limitations in its core design, advanced its gameplay and graphics.  If dungeon instancing was ever meant to differentiate EQ2, it was lost when SOE updated EQ1 with LDoN.  I gather yet another graphical update is in store for EQ1.

SOE, given the unexpected length of time to develop EQ2, combined with potentially more effective competitive threats than forecast, has been forced to upgrade EQ1 more than it planned.  The result?  The differences between EQ1 and EQ2, may not be as great as SOE had hoped.  This means that the migration from EQ1 to EQ2 is less certain and they simply run the risk of not expanding the EQ franchise but dividing it among two titles.

And the great EQ1 switching cost?  Heirlooms, name legacy etc. are steps that are just the beginning in a series of concessions to increasingly protect and recognize the investment of current EQ1 veterens in attracting them to EQ2.

With respect to the Gold pass and future advertising - I agree with Alluvian's speculations here.

[Riggswolfe]

In regards to this post and the EQ2/WoW post I suspect it'll be interesting to look back 6 months-1 year from now and see how far off we all turn out to be.

Just to add more fuel to the fire of this debate, other than AC1 can anyone think of an MMO that had a sequel? I am hoping EQ2 doesn't turn out like AC2 did. Though it is interesting to see that both of them are based on the premise of a gameworld altered by some kind of apocalypse.

[Trippy]

Just to add more fuel to the fire of this debate, other than AC1 can anyone think of an MMO that had a sequel?

Lineage II.

[jpark]

In regards to this post and the EQ2/WoW post I suspect it'll be interesting to look back 6 months-1 year from now and see how far off we all turn out to be.

Just to add more fuel to the fire of this debate, other than AC1 can anyone think of an MMO that had a sequel? I am hoping EQ2 doesn't turn out like AC2 did. Though it is interesting to see that both of them are based on the premise of a gameworld altered by some kind of apocalypse.

That's interesting.  I've never played AC - how did the sequal turn out?  What was the premise?  e.g. how was AC2 positioned to users of AC1?

[Alkiera]

Let's keep in mind our fundamental difference: I believe that try as they might - SOE can improve upon EQ1 but cannot realistically offer a completely different gaming experience that could co-exist along with EQ2.

Uh...  SWG?  I'd argue that it's a different gaming experience.  I played a LOT of EQ, and a little SWG, and whilte htey both had a bit of a treadmill, the core gameplay was in vastly different areas.  EQ was all about combat, whereas in SWG combat is a sideshow to the resource/economics game.  The lack of drops powered by levels/mudflation makes for a completely different experience in SWG than EQlive.

On the other hand, EQ1 is showing its age, and is susceptible to competition. SOE, imo, knows it needs to be updated from the core to survive. Problem is (I am not a programmer) that such a massive update to ensure the longevity of EQ is not possible - the upgrade is too big to undertake. Solution? A new product must be made instead, free from the core problems of EQ. That is EQ2.

In this scenario - EQ1 will be encouraged to migrate to EQ2 (for reasons we talked about above).

This is where I disagree with you.  I think that SOE does NOT want to replace EQLive.  They want to let people play EQLive for as long as they want...  They are way past the point of ROI on the game, it's a cash cow they'll continue to run until no one wants to play it anymore.  I see it going the way of UO, personally.  Down to a few servers of the most hardcore, perhaps with an eventual merging of Legends with normal servers and them all having a Legends-like atmosphere, if not all the benefits.

They are building EQ2 to be different enough from EQLive that their former customers will be enticed to play again... They know they can't really entice them back to EQLive, but if offered a similar world, with the promise of a different system that lacks the things they found annoying in EQLive, they might come back to an SOE game.  This way they'd still have the EQLive cash cow, AND get back large numbers of customers that they'd lost.

Specifically, your statement "SOE, imo, knows it needs to be updated from the core to survive" is incorrect.  They know that it'll last as long as the addicts want to play it... and being addicts, that will be quite a while, even if the game more or less stays as it is today.

Seriously, it is in SOE's interests to have the people playing EQLive continue playing EQLive.  Bonus if they pay up for the all-access pass that lets them play both EQLive and EQ2...  But they aren't interested in just moving people from one to the other.

--
Alkiera

[jpark]

Uh...  SWG?  I'd argue that it's a different gaming experience.  I played a LOT of EQ, and a little SWG, and whilte htey both had a bit of a treadmill, the core gameplay was in vastly different areas.  EQ was all about combat, whereas in SWG combat is a sideshow to the resource/economics game.

Sounds good.  My point is the ability to differentiate two games of the same genre.  You are talking about two genres.  The possibility of true product differentiation by comparing SWG vs. EQ1 is vastly greater than comparing EQ1 vs. EQ2 in all likelihood.

This is where I disagree with you.  I think that SOE does NOT want to replace EQLive.  They want to let people play EQLive for as long as they want...  They are way past the point of ROI on the game, it's a cash cow they'll continue to run until no one wants to play it anymore.  I see it going the way of UO, personally.  Down to a few servers of the most hardcore, perhaps with an eventual merging of Legends with normal servers and them all having a Legends-like atmosphere, if not all the benefits.

Probable.  Ironically, thas not even been mentioned explicitly so it is a clear possiblity - but a new one in this thread.  To make sure we are on the same page:

Cash Cow = low maintenance revenue stream

The group of users on a few servers you describe is quite possible.  However, I am talking about the bulk of the current EQ1 player base.  These folks, I assume, expect expansions and regular updates to EQ.  They will not be happy with the Cash Cow scenario where EQ1 is no longer the focus of heavy developmental effort.

It's this larger group of people that require / expect new expansions / improvements to the game (graphics etc.) that SOE will encourage to move to EQ2.

They are building EQ2 to be different enough from EQLive that their former customers will be enticed to play again... They know they can't really entice them back to EQLive, but if offered a similar world, with the promise of a different system that lacks the things they found annoying in EQLive, they might come back to an SOE game.  This way they'd still have the EQLive cash cow, AND get back large numbers of customers that they'd lost.

Double upside - it is possible as Alluvian has argued and SOE marketing claims.  It would be great if it attracted those that quite back - and on a short term basis it might.  But looking at the "Knowns" (nod to Rumsfield hehe) the first priority is their current revenue base, which largely expects updates / expansions and support.

Specifically, your statement "SOE, imo, knows it needs to be updated from the core to survive" is incorrect.  They know that it'll last as long as the addicts want to play it... and being addicts, that will be quite a while, even if the game more or less stays as it is today.

More than a year ago I would have agreed.  I still visit the bulletin boards of one of my old guilds that was non-uber and was middle of the pack.  The guild was roleplaying focused - and there was a post about organizing which EQ2 server would be the new roleplaying server in EQ2 if none is officially designated as such (something similar occurred in Shadowbane with the Mourning server).

The player segments you referr to do exist - I agree - but they are pretty small (which we probably disagree on).  My concern is the bulk of the current player base playing EQ1 - which for financial reasons - has to be SOE concern as well.

[Sky]

Uh... SWG? I'd argue that it's a different gaming experience. I played a LOT of EQ, and a little SWG, and whilte htey both had a bit of a treadmill, the core gameplay was in vastly different areas. EQ was all about combat, whereas in SWG combat is a sideshow to the resource/economics game. The lack of drops powered by levels/mudflation makes for a completely different experience in SWG than EQlive.

Don't forget Planetside. I'd say SOE is very interested in having a diversified portfolio, and NCSoft seems to understand that, too.

Goddamned EA.

[HaemishM]

SOE is perfectly able to provide a different player experience than EQ1, as others have mentioned. Look at both SWG AND Planetside. Vastly different player experiences. The SOE umbrella has room for more than 1 type of play experience, dependent on the target audience for the game, and all of it fed by the cash cow that is EQ1. When EQ1 becomes more loss than profit, you will see it phased out, reduced or shut down.

EQ2 is just another piece of a larger puzzle, a directive that comes from the marketing division I'd imagine. It's called "Expanding the Brand." They've been doing it for over 2 years now. We have the EQ Action Figures, the Lords of Everquest game, the EQ Pen and Paper RPG, the rumored Everquest movie, and finally Everquest Online Adventures. All of them offer significantly different play experiences, but they all fit under the umbrella of the EQ brand. You don't play EQOA or the EQ PNP game for the same reasons you play EQ1.

AC2, BTW, was a total cluster fuck and is barely hanging on even now.

[Alluvian]

Jpark, EQ2 was expected to release earlier, possibly as early as Christmass 2003 depending on who you believe.  But LDON was already in at that point, and the graphics engine upgrade was already announced (I believe).

LDON was more of a test run of instancing.  See what the players like about it, what they dislike, how popular is it with the current EQ1 crowd, etc...

The new engine is mainly designed to run current situations better and to ease computer strain during raid situations.  The engine has been in EQ for 4+ months now.  The new expansion does not have a new engine, that is already in, it is just using more of the features of that new engine.

I don't see any reason to stop developing EQlive.  My definition of Cash Cow is different than yours.  I see it as a low risk investment with predictable rate of return.  EQ has been a rock for a long time.  I think it will continue to be strong for a long time coming.  The rock may shrink abit when EQ2 and WoW come out, but I don't see it breaking at all.

I suspect EQlive will still continue to see expansions every 8 months or so for years to come.

EQ is about large raids huge scale PVE endgame.  EQ2 cannot match that.  The statement that as computers get better they CAN match that is flawed in my opinion.  EQ2 character models contain FAR more data per model.  I don't think they will ever be able to have huge raids as there is too much data to transmit per character.

SWG ran into the same problem.  Not that the models are too detailed, but they take too much bandwidth to transmit all their data (tons of clothing options, tons of facial sliders, unique armor stats for every body location, unique weapon stats, etc...).

So EQ will continue to be the "get together with 40 of your closest friends and slay the dragon".  Some people really like the Big Guild working together feeling of accomplishment.  As a member of a guild I can understand that very much.  I never understood raids on a pickup group though, but since SWG I can sure understand the feeling of being a part of something larger than yourself.

EQ2 will be a more intimate game with the biggest raids being 24 people.  I really think the two can coexist just fine.  Assuming EQ2 does not totally suck and go the way of AC2.

[Sable Blaze]

Actually, I did play EQOA for the same reason I initially played EQlive. I like fantasy RPGs (even with the "R" barely accounted for), and I like dark elves.

I quit EQ because of the idiocy rampant in it's evolution. You could say that's because of gameplay design issues. EQOA had a much better handle on class balance.

Also, EQOA's Norrath feels VERY different from EQlive's Norrath. The continuous world (no zones) is a very slick feature of EQOA. Also, it's neat to see the world 200 years before EQlive. Some very interesting (and a few chilling) things going on then.

The downside was console limitations, both in power and demographics. I like consoles for conveniance and their newly realized LAN capabilities, but their online audience is a pack of drooling mongoloids. Spend a week in EQOA and you'll be having b.net flashbacks. Ease of entry = dumbass heaven.

What I"m hoping for from EQ2 is an experience in gameplay similar to EQOA, but much greater realization of the world. I'm also hoping that the system reqs are so overwhelming that you need a real horse of a machine to run it. Hopefully, the lowest common denominator is kept out as long as possible.

[jpark]

EQ is about large raids huge scale PVE endgame.  EQ2 cannot match that.  The statement that as computers get better they CAN match that is flawed in my opinion.  EQ2 character models contain FAR more data per model.  I don't think they will ever be able to have huge raids as there is too much data to transmit per character.

So EQ will continue to be the "get together with 40 of your closest friends and slay the dragon".  Some people really like the Big Guild working together feeling of accomplishment.

I think this is one of the strongest arguments against the position I have tried to frame here.  It's plausible.  

But I can't help but think - subjectively - that the graphics - combined with what might be perceived as improved game play of EQ2 (housing, boats, trade skill class, combat wheel, improved class balance, solo content etc.) that players find that this this game is more than "different" but "better" than EQ1 itself (utter speculation).

SOE is perfectly able to provide a different player experience than EQ1, as others have mentioned. Look at both SWG AND Planetside. Vastly different player experiences. The SOE umbrella has room for more than 1 type of play experience, dependent on the target audience for the game, and all of it fed by the cash cow that is EQ1. When EQ1 becomes more loss than profit, you will see it phased out, reduced or shut down.

Comments about making the EQ a franchise transcending a single product I agree with - involving different entertainment mediums etc.  But HaemishM, can you honestly see yourself subbing to two MMORPGS of the same genre?  Two fantasy games in an ancient setting?

If this was WoW and EQ2 I could "see it".  The graphical differences between the two games right of the bat are "apples and oranges" and depends greatly on player taste.  One is not abvously better than the other.  But comparing EQ1 and EQ2 right of the bat my reaction is different - the latter is the evolution of the former.  The new and improved future of EQ is EQ2.

My lame final argument:  Naming.  Why the hell did they call it EQ2?  Why not EQ XXXXX (insert).  EQ"2" branding implies more than membership to the franchize - but succession.  Out with the old.

[HaemishM]

Some people can subscribe to more than one fantasy game.

But the biggest difference between EQ2 and some other fantasy game is the GOLD PASS. The thing is, with the gold pass, you don't HAVE to subscribe to two fantasy games. You subscribe to the SOE brand, and there happen to be two flavors of fantasy-based game that go with it. Even if you only like one, you will probably at least dip your toe in the other one before deciding on sticking with a singular fantasy game. Win-win for SOE.

[jpark]

I have no argument against the Gold Pass - good marketing.  Economies of scope and all that stuff.

You see the Gold Pass, correct me if I am wrong, as a means to draw players to play both games by leveraging them both.

I see it as a veiled attempt to shift the player base from one platform to another.  Having access to two MMORPGS via the Gold Pass makes sense, but makes more sense when the player base of one MMORPGS is one that you don't have to spend much time supporting anymore.

Put another way:  The Gold Pass is technically a discount allowing access to both games when separate subscriptions would be more expensive.  But what game does this really favor entry into?  EQ2.  Anyone not playing EQ right now is not playing for a reason, Gold Pass or not.  EQ2 is a completely different story.

My argument here on this point is not strong I know - but I put the Gold Pass in the same category as name legacy and heirlooms - another incentive to join EQ2 by lowering barriers to entry.

[HaemishM]

Stop looking at EQ2 and EQ1 as separate games. The Gold Pass is what SOE really wants to sell, because it is entirely game independent. You are in essence, buying SOE, which is a value-added service because it has X number of components, where X > Mythic's components, or X > EA's components.

The only other company that could right now come close to offering the same amount of services for one price is NCSoft, and they really won't be competitive as an umbrella service for about a year.

In SOE's eyes, EQ1 customer = EQ2 Customer < SOE Gold Pass customer

[SirBruce]

You're all assuming that the cost of supporting an EQ1 subscriber is the same as an EQ2 subscriber.  If SOE has learned anything, the cost per subscriber for EQ2 should be less.  If so, then SOE would want to get as many people moved from EQ1  to EQ2 as possible.

Bruce

[Alluvian]

In a related note, I am exited and hopeful that EQ2 will bring about a revival in Planetside.  Most people I know who play planetside play for a month, unsub for a few, then play another month, etc...  It is the rental MMOG or something.  With the gold pass more will be willing to keep it going and play game here and there now and again without as much guilt from paying for it.

[jpark]

In SOE's eyes, EQ1 customer = EQ2 Customer < SOE Gold Pass customer

HaemishM we are not connecting on this point.  This statement could be true imo - but it depends on the resource allocation to EQ1:

Let me rephrase this:  You're SOE with 100 heads (no idea of staff size) on development and support for EQ1.  Are you going to cut staff, add or keep it the same with the Gold pass in place at the time EQ2 arrives?

From the consumer's perspective you are right - the Gold Pass seems to obscure this issue.  But from the company's perspective cost issues still remain for both titles - how much development support to keep committed to EQ1 and so on.  

Bruce - you lost me on that point.  When you refer to lower costs per sub in EQ2, but are you including future development work on expansions / upgrades?

[HaemishM]

I'd imagine they already have maintaince staff budgeted for both EQ1 and EQ2. What will be cut first on EQ1 will be expansion staff, then Live staff.

[SirBruce]

Bruce - you lost me on that point.  When you refer to lower costs per sub in EQ2, but are you including future development work on expansions / upgrades?

I would, yes.  Theoretically, advances in technology/architecture SHOULD allow a 2nd/3rd generation 3D MMOG to add content more cheaply than for 1st generation.  Obviously though this is a variable cost; if you slow down the rate of expansions in EQ1 you could reduce the cost per subscriber, unless this costs you too many subscribers who stop playing.

Actually figuring all this out is VERY complicated, so you'd want to simplify it by focusing on the high-cost terms of the equation.  I would say cost of support and cost of expansions would be the major ones.  Will EQ2 be cheaper in these areas than EQ1?  I don't know, but one would hope so.

Bruce

PS - Another cost factor, of course, is bandwidth usage.

[jpark]

I'd imagine they already have maintaince staff budgeted for both EQ1 and EQ2. What will be cut first on EQ1 will be expansion staff, then Live staff.

Okay.  Why?  As a manager at SOE in this scenario what are you anticipating in putting these measures into action?

Theoretically, advances in technology/architecture SHOULD allow a 2nd/3rd generation 3D MMOG to add content more cheaply than for 1st generation. Obviously though this is a variable cost; if you slow down the rate of expansions in EQ1 you could reduce the cost per subscriber, unless this costs you too many subscribers who stop playing.

To paraphrase the same amount of development time in EQ2 will yield more results than the same effort spent on EQ1.  Correct?  To paraphrase again, the same amount of development time spent maintaining / expanding/ updating EQ2 will give a higher return on investment (or internal rate of return) than the same time on EQ1.  Correct?

Every company has a "hurdle rate"; a threshold rate of return required from all capital allocated.  It sounds like EQ1 will be a drag on the rate of return of funds spent on EQ2 (since we basically have a weighted average of all funds spent on all projects to arrive at the aggregate rate of retunr for the firm as a whole).  Correct?

Bruce what your saying is that the ROI on capital spent on EQ1 may be inherently lower than EQ2.  What do you see as the implication of this difference for continued support for EQ1 (expansions, upgades etc.)?

[HaemishM]

Actually, for at least the first year, I'd expect that the ROI on EQ1 will be leaps and bounds ahead of EQ2, especially if EQ2 isn't a 200k or higher seller. EQ1's development costs are paid; even with expansion staff, it's still pretty damn profitable, when you consider that games like Shadowbane could break even with 50k subscribers. That's why I consider it a cash cow, because you really could scrap the expansions (or make them less frequent) and you would still have a large player base that hasn't touched more than half the content available. There's no real reason to have an expansion every 6 months for EQ1, when most non-uber guilds take a year or more to really sink their teeth into the expansion content.

Expansions as used by SOE are about: 1) putting a new SKU on the shelf to attract new users, 2) loyalty/retention tools. For all but about 1% of the population, there's a years worth of gameplay in most of the expansions. And they've stopped catering solely to that 1%, with things like LDoN adventures.

EQ2, OTOH, has at least 3 years of development costs to make up for before they can turn a profit. I see that as being at least a year's worth of decent, steady subscribers. The barriers to entry of EQ2 are fairly steep. It requires pretty stout hardware to really take advantage of, old EQ1 players will have to start over from scratch with a new system, it has all the good AND bad connotations of the EQ brand name, and unlike its predecessor, it's entering a very crowded subgenre. These are all factors in addition to the barrier to entry that a subscription-based game has for normal gamers.

I think we are a good 2 years away from any attempts by SOE to move people from EQ1 to EQ2, and that's assuming steady subscriptions.

[jpark]

With beta positions issued and the NDA lifted:

Do you beta-players seriously believe that EQ2 can be treated as a separate product with different gameplay from EQ1?

In reviewing the boards - the only difference I can really see are the systems specs required due to the upgraded graphics of EQ2 vs. EQ1.

Today's operative phrase is:  Market Cannabilization.

[Kageru]

EQ1 has problems of its own without a possible sequel and competitor to worry about. The game is suffering from a near terminal hyper-flation which has obsoleted 90% of the content and created a gaping chasm between the guilded and non-guilded. And while the serious raiders will stick with EQ1 I don't think they're actually that large a percentage of the subscriber base. If another game offers a better experience the possibility of the casual component of the population vanishing, and the game "rotting from below" is very real. And since it is a game that relies on large guilds it's inherently sensitive to reductions in the recruit pool.

EQ2 shows every sign of a game that was intended to be for the casual gamers but has mutated towards the hardcore. And I think that's almost certainly because SOE doesn't believe they can keep EQ1 competitive in the face of more modern competition (specifically WoW). If nothing else having many of their beloved uber-guilds retire en-mass from EQ1 (leading to the uber-guild summit they held) must have caused a chill to run through their dev's.

Incidentally their plan is one EQ expansion every 6 months. The next EQ expansion, which will occur after WoW and EQ2 hit, should be extremely interesting.

[Venkman]

I'm partially with Kageru on this. I don't think SOE seriously thinks EQlive and EQ2 will exist together indefinitely, and don't think the uber guilds account for a large chunk of the playerbase. The most vocal, sure, and the ones that have gotten EQlive the most press, maybe. But as to how many of them are paying $13 or $40 a month to play? I wouldn't be surprised if it was less than 10% of their total subscriptions.

WoW isn't the only problem. In fact, I'd say FFXI is a bigger one. That game seems to pander to the exact same mentality the ubers had in EQlive, a throwback to Vision or at least to those days when Time was All and everyone else just bitched about it.

We'll see. I don't think WoW and EQ2 should launch together. Both will leech subscriptions from the other, ensuring neither make their goals (both sales don't count imho, not during the holiday glut). If I were in charge, I'd launch EQ2 in April or May, about when enough folks are bored with WoW to begin looking elsewhere.

Not gonna happen of course. That'd be admitting "defeat" (though delivered right, SOE could garner huge cache if they said 'yea, we've screwed up in the past, but we don't want to anymore', particularly against a company that, to gamers, can do no wrong).

Ramble ramble ramble.

EQ2 is much more casual than EQlive, throughout a good chunk of the game (based more on research than personal experience though... grain of salt). The biggest improvement is that it does not require nearly as much sequential. You may want 3 hours a night to play, but you don't need to sit there at the computer for 3 hours fearing your next bio break could result in a raid wipe.